Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Increased β-Lactams dosing regimens improve clinical outcome in critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance treated for a first episode of hospital or ventilator-acquired pneumonia: a before and after study

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Augmented renal clearance (ARC) is recognized as a leading cause of β-lactam subexposure when conventional dosing regimens are used. The main objective was to compare the clinical outcome of ARC patients treated by conventional or increased β-lactam dosing regimens for a first episode of hospital or ventilator-acquired pneumonia (HAP-VAP).

          Methods

          In this single-center, retrospective study, every ARC patient treated by β-lactam for a first episode of HAP-VAP was included during two 15-month periods, before ( Control period) and after ( Treatment period) the modification of a local antibiotic therapy protocol. ARC was defined by a 24-h measured creatinine clearance ≥ 150 ml/min. The primary endpoint was defined as a therapeutic failure of the antimicrobial therapy or a HAP-VAP relapse within 28 days. Inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) was derived from a propensity score model. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between treatment period and clinical outcome.

          Results

          During the study period, 177 patients were included ( control period, N = 88; treatment period, N = 89). Therapeutic failure or HAP-VAP relapse was significantly lower in the treatment period (10 vs. 23%, p = 0.019). The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio of poor clinical outcome in the treatment period was 0.35 (95% CI 0.15–0.81), p = 0.014. No antibiotic side effect was reported during the treatment period.

          Conclusions

          Higher than licensed dosing regimens of β-lactams may be safe and effective in reducing the rate of therapeutic failure and HAP-VAP recurrence in critically ill augmented renal clearance (ARC) patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients?

          Morbidity and mortality for critically ill patients with infections remains a global healthcare problem. We aimed to determine whether β-lactam antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients achieves concentrations associated with maximal activity and whether antibiotic concentrations affect patient outcome. This was a prospective, multinational pharmacokinetic point-prevalence study including 8 β-lactam antibiotics. Two blood samples were taken from each patient during a single dosing interval. The primary pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets were free antibiotic concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen at both 50% (50% f T>MIC) and 100% (100% f T>MIC) of the dosing interval. We used skewed logistic regression to describe the effect of antibiotic exposure on patient outcome. We included 384 patients (361 evaluable patients) across 68 hospitals. The median age was 61 (interquartile range [IQR], 48-73) years, the median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 18 (IQR, 14-24), and 65% of patients were male. Of the 248 patients treated for infection, 16% did not achieve 50% f T>MIC and these patients were 32% less likely to have a positive clinical outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .009). Positive clinical outcome was associated with increasing 50% f T>MIC and 100% f T>MIC ratios (OR, 1.02 and 1.56, respectively; P < .03), with significant interaction with sickness severity status. Infected critically ill patients may have adverse outcomes as a result of inadeqaute antibiotic exposure; a paradigm change to more personalized antibiotic dosing may be necessary to improve outcomes for these most seriously ill patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of area under the inhibitory curve (AUIC) and time above the minimum inhibitory concentration (T>MIC) as predictors of outcome for cefepime and ceftazidime in serious bacterial infections.

            The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship of the predicted pharmacodynamic parameters 24-h area under the inhibitory curve (AUIC=area under the concentration-time curve for 24h of dosing/minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC0-24/MIC) and time above the minimum inhibitory concentration (T>MIC) with clinical and microbiological outcomes in patients with bacteraemia and sepsis treated with cefepime or ceftazidime. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were derived for 76 of 107 patients enrolled in two prospective, randomised, clinical trials comparing cefepime with ceftazidime for the treatment of sepsis with bacteraemia, lower respiratory tract infection or complicated urinary tract infection. The relationships between the pharmacodynamic parameters and outcomes were examined. Whilst no significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed between cefepime and ceftazidime, there were significant differences in the pharmacodynamic analysis. Patients with an AUIC> or =250 had significantly greater clinical cure (79% vs. 33%; P=0.002) and bacteriological eradication (96% vs. 44%; P MIC of 100% had significantly greater clinical cure (82% vs. 33%; P=0.002) and bacteriological eradication (97% vs. 44%; P MIC of MIC was <100%.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Subtherapeutic initial β-lactam concentrations in select critically ill patients: association between augmented renal clearance and low trough drug concentrations.

              β-Lactams are routinely used as empirical therapy in critical illness, with extended concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the infecting organism required for effective treatment. Changes in renal function in this setting can significantly impact the probability of achieving such targets. Analysis was made of trough plasma drug concentrations obtained via therapeutic drug monitoring, compared with renal function, in critically ill patients receiving empirical β-lactam therapy. Drug concentrations were measured by means of high-performance liquid chromatography and corrected for protein binding. Therapeutic levels were defined as greater than or equal to MIC and greater than or equal to four times MIC (maximum bacterial eradication), respectively. Renal function was assessed by means of an 8-h creatinine clearance (CLCR). Fifty-two concurrent trough concentrations and CLCR measures were used in analysis. Piperacillin was the most frequent β-lactam prescribed (48%), whereas empirical cover and Staphylococcus species were the most common indications for therapy (62%). Most patients were mechanically ventilated on the day of study (85%), although only 25% were receiving vasopressors. In only 58% (n = 30) was the trough drug concentration greater than or equal to MIC, falling to 31% (n = 16) when using four times MIC as the target. CLCR values ≥ 130 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with trough concentrations less than MIC in 82% (P < .001) and less than four times MIC in 72% (P < .001). CLCR remained a significant predictor of subtherapeutic concentrations in multivariate analysis. Elevated CLCR appears to be an important predictor of subtherapeutic β-lactam concentrations and suggests an important role in identifying such patients in the ICU.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cedric.carrie@chu-bordeaux.fr
                gregoire.chadefaux@chu-bordeaux.fr
                noemie.sauvage@chu-bordeaux.fr
                hugues.de-courson@chu-bordeaux.fr
                laurent.petit@chu-bordeaux.fr
                karine.nouette-gaulain@chu-bordeaux.fr
                bpereira@chu-clermontferrand.fr
                matthieu.biais@chu-bordeaux.fr
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                27 November 2019
                27 November 2019
                2019
                : 23
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.414263.6, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, , Hôpital Pellegrin, CHU Bordeaux, ; 33000 Bordeaux, France
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2106 639X, GRID grid.412041.2, University Bordeaux Segalen, ; 33000 Bordeaux, France
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0639 4151, GRID grid.411163.0, Biostatistics Unit, Délégation Recherche Clinique & Innovation, , CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, ; Clermont-Ferrand, France
                Article
                2621
                10.1186/s13054-019-2621-4
                6881978
                31775840
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Comments

                Comment on this article