29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam antibiotics intravenous infusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

      research-article

      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

          The prolonged β-lactam infusion strategy has emerged as the standard treatment for sepsis or septic shock despite its unknown efficacy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam antibiotics infusion on outcomes in sepsis or septic shock patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Methods

          A thorough search was conducted on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mortality between prolonged and intermittent infusion in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of the target plasma concentration, clinical cure, adverse events, and occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We performed a subgroup analysis stratified according to the year of publication before or after 2015 and a trial sequential analysis (TSA). The Der Simonian–Laird random-effects models were subsequently used to report the pooled risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI).

          Results

          We identified 2869 studies from the 3 databases, and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Hospital mortality did not decrease (RR 0.69 [95%CI 0.47–1.02]) in the prolonged infusion group. The attainment of the target plasma concentration and clinical cure significantly improved (RR 0.40 [95%CI 0.21–0.75] and RR 0.84 [95%CI 0.73–0.97], respectively) in the prolonged infusion group. There were, however, no significant differences in the adverse events and the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria between the groups (RR 1.01 (95%CI 0.95–1.06) and RR 0.53 [95%CI 0.10–2.83], respectively). For the subgroup analysis, a significant improvement in hospital mortality or clinical cure was reported in studies published in or after 2015 (RR 0.66 [95%CI 0.44–0.98] and RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.50–0.90], respectively). The results of the TSA indicated an insufficient number of studies for a definitive analysis.

          Conclusions

          The prolonged infusion of β-lactam antibiotics significantly improved upon attaining the target plasma concentration and clinical cure without increasing the adverse event or the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prolonged infusion could not improve hospital mortality although an improvement was shown for studies published in or after 2015. Further studies are warranted as suggested by our TSA results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • 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

            Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis: a multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

            Beta-lactam antibiotics are a commonly used treatment for severe sepsis, with intermittent bolus dosing standard therapy, despite a strong theoretical rationale for continuous administration. The aim of this trial was to determine the clinical and pharmacokinetic differences between continuous and intermittent dosing in patients with severe sepsis. This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus dosing of piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, and ticarcillin-clavulanate conducted in 5 intensive care units across Australia and Hong Kong. The primary pharmacokinetic outcome on treatment analysis was plasma antibiotic concentration above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) on days 3 and 4. The assessed clinical outcomes were clinical response 7-14 days after study drug cessation, ICU-free days at day 28 and hospital survival. Sixty patients were enrolled with 30 patients each allocated to the intervention and control groups. Plasma antibiotic concentrations exceeded the MIC in 82% of patients (18 of 22) in the continuous arm versus 29% (6 of 21) in the intermittent arm (P = .001). Clinical cure was higher in the continuous group (70% vs 43%; P = .037), but ICU-free days (19.5 vs 17 days; P = .14) did not significantly differ between groups. Survival to hospital discharge was 90% in the continuous group versus 80% in the intermittent group (P = .47). Continuous administration of beta-lactam antibiotics achieved higher plasma antibiotic concentrations than intermittent administration with improvement in clinical cure. This study provides a strong rationale for further multicenter trials with sufficient power to identify differences in patient-centered endpoints.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meropenem dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis and without renal dysfunction: intermittent bolus versus continuous administration? Monte Carlo dosing simulations and subcutaneous tissue distribution.

              To compare the plasma and subcutaneous tissue concentration-time profiles of meropenem administered by intermittent bolus dosing or continuous infusion to critically ill patients with sepsis and without renal dysfunction, and to use population pharmacokinetic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations to assess the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) against Gram-negative pathogens likely to be encountered in critical care units. We randomized 10 patients with sepsis to receive meropenem by intermittent bolus administration (n = 5; 1 g 8 hourly) or an equal dose administered by continuous infusion (n = 5). Serial subcutaneous tissue concentrations were determined using microdialysis and compared with plasma data for first-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics. Population pharmacokinetic modelling of plasma data and Monte Carlo simulations were then undertaken with NONMEM. It was found that continuous infusion maintains higher median trough concentrations, in both plasma (intermittent bolus 0 versus infusion 7 mg/L) and subcutaneous tissue (0 versus 4 mg/L). All simulated intermittent bolus, extended and continuous infusion dosing achieved 100% of pharmacodynamic targets against most Gram-negative pathogens. Superior obtainment of pharmacodynamic targets was achieved using administration by extended or continuous infusion against less susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species. This is the first study to compare the relative concentration-time data of bolus and continuous administration of meropenem at the subcutaneous tissue and plasma levels. We found that the administration of meropenem by continuous infusion maintains higher concentrations in subcutaneous tissue and plasma than by intermittent bolus dosing. Administration by extended or continuous infusion will achieve superior CFR against less-susceptible organisms in patients without renal dysfunction.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kondokondou2000@yahoo.co.jp
                kota@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
                haruki845@gmail.com
                haramurako5@yahoo.co.jp
                shime@koto.kpu-m.ac.jp
                Journal
                J Intensive Care
                J Intensive Care
                Journal of Intensive Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                2052-0492
                6 October 2020
                6 October 2020
                2020
                : 8
                : 77
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.482669.7, ISNI 0000 0004 0569 1541, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, , Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, ; 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, Chiba, 279-0021 Japan
                [2 ]GRID grid.257022.0, ISNI 0000 0000 8711 3200, Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences, , Hiroshima University, ; Kasumi 1-2-3, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551 Japan
                [3 ]GRID grid.415639.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0377 6680, Department of Infectious Diseases, , Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, ; Otowachinjicho 2, Kyoto-shi, Yamashina-ku, Kyoto, 607-8062 Japan
                [4 ]GRID grid.410819.5, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, , Yokohama Rosai Hospital, ; 3211 Kozukue, Kohoku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 222-0036 Japan
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-7089
                Article
                490
                10.1186/s40560-020-00490-z
                7541232
                33042550
                3419f677-c8b8-4b43-9574-fda053fdcc21
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 16 July 2020
                : 9 September 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                antibiotics,pharmacokinetic,continuous infusion,sepsis,septic shock

                Comments

                Comment on this article