47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recommended β-lactam regimens are inadequate in septic patients treated with continuous renal replacement therapy

      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

          Introduction

          Sepsis is responsible for important alterations in the pharmacokinetics of antibiotics. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which is commonly used in septic patients, may further contribute to pharmacokinetic changes. Current recommendations for antibiotic doses during CRRT combine data obtained from heterogeneous patient populations in which different CRRT devices and techniques have been used. We studied whether these recommendations met optimal pharmacokinetic criteria for broad-spectrum antibiotic levels in septic shock patients undergoing CRRT.

          Methods

          This open, prospective study enrolled consecutive patients treated with CRRT and receiving either meropenem (MEM), piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), cefepime (FEP) or ceftazidime (CAZ). Serum concentrations of these antibiotics were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography from samples taken before ( t = 0) and 1, 2, 5, and 6 or 12 hours (depending on the β-lactam regimen) after the administration of each antibiotic. Series of measurements were separated into those taken during the early phase (< 48 hours from the first dose) of therapy and those taken later (> 48 hours).

          Results

          A total of 69 series of serum samples were obtained in 53 patients (MEM, n = 17; TZP, n = 16; FEP, n = 8; CAZ, n = 12). Serum concentrations remained above four times the minimal inhibitory concentration for Pseudomonas spp. for the recommended time in 81% of patients treated with MEM, in 71% with TZP, in 53% with CAZ and in 0% with FEP. Accumulation after 48 hours of treatment was significant only for MEM.

          Conclusions

          In septic patients receiving CRRT, recommended doses of β-lactams for Pseudomonas aeruginosa are adequate for MEM but not for TZP, FEP and CAZ; for these latter drugs, higher doses and/or extended infusions should be used to optimise serum concentrations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • 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: found
            Is Open Access

            Insufficient β-lactam concentrations in the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock

            Introduction Altered pharmacokinetics (PK) in critically ill patients can result in insufficient serum β-lactam concentrations when standard dosages are administered. Previous studies on β-lactam PK have generally excluded the most severely ill patients, or were conducted during the steady-state period of treatment. The aim of our study was to determine whether the first dose of piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefepime, and meropenem would result in adequate serum drug concentrations in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Methods Open, prospective, multicenter study in four Belgian intensive care units. All consecutive patients with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock, in whom treatment with the study drugs was indicated, were included. Serum concentrations of the antibiotics were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) before and 1, 1.5, 4.5 and 6 or 8 hours after administration. Results 80 patients were treated with piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 27), ceftazidime (n = 18), cefepime (n = 19) or meropenem (n = 16). Serum concentrations remained above 4 times the minimal inhibitory concentration (T > 4 × MIC), corresponding to the clinical breakpoint for Pseudomonas aeruginosa defined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), for 57% of the dosage interval for meropenem (target MIC = 8 μg/mL), 45% for ceftazidime (MIC = 32 μg/mL), 34% for cefepime (MIC = 32 μg/mL), and 33% for piperacillin-tazobactam (MIC = 64 μg/mL). The number of patients who attained the target PK profile was 12/16 for meropenem (75%), 5/18 for ceftazidime (28%), 3/19 (16%) for cefepime, and 12/27 (44%) for piperacillin-tazobactam. Conclusions Serum concentrations of the antibiotic after the first dose were acceptable only for meropenem. Standard dosage regimens for piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime and cefepime may, therefore, be insufficient to empirically cover less susceptible pathogens in the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock.
              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

                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2011
                6 June 2011
                : 15
                : 3
                : R137
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, route de Lennik 808, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Chemistry, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, route de Lennik 808, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium
                [3 ]Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, route de Lennik 808, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium
                Article
                cc10257
                10.1186/cc10257
                3219006
                21649882
                b9fac2b8-c76e-4312-8de3-7578e157decc
                Copyright ©2011 Seyler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 March 2011
                : 1 May 2011
                : 6 June 2011
                Categories
                Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article