Literature DB >> 12615868

Optimizing ceftazidime pharmacodynamics in patients with acute exacerbation of severe chronic bronchitis.

Annette Lubasch1, Stefan Lück, Hartmut Lode, Harald Mauch, Joachim Lorenz, Pal Bölcskei, Tobias Welte.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Implementation of current pharmacodynamic knowledge could enhance clinical results, avoid resistance development and reduce treatment costs. In this open, randomized, multicentre study, we evaluated the clinical and bacteriological outcome and pharmacokinetic as well as pharmacodynamic parameters of two ceftazidime therapy regimens in patients with acute exacerbation of severe chronic bronchitis (AECB).
METHODS: Eighty-one patients (56 males, 25 females, age 65.3 +/- 10.1 years) with AECB were included. A subgroup of 21 patients underwent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic examination. The patients received either ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h (C3 x 2) or ceftazidime 2 g as a loading dose, followed by ceftazidime 2 g over 7 h every 12 h (C2 x 2) for 8-14 days. Clinical and bacteriological responses were monitored at day 8 or 9, and 72 h after the end of therapy (EOT).
RESULTS: At EOT, clinical success was recorded in 90% and 90.2% of clinically evaluable patients receiving C3 x 2 and C2 x 2, respectively. Bacteriological success at EOT was achieved in 87.5% and 90.2% of evaluable patients treated with C3 x 2 and C2 x 2, respectively. C(max) (mg/L) varied between 168.9 +/- 34.1 and 144.0 +/- 9.8 in the C3 x 2 group, and between 60.1 +/- 34.1 and 54.2 +/- 30.4 at steady-state in the C2 x 2 group. Minimal concentrations were between 9.1 and 13.4 mg/L in the C3 x 2 group, and between 16.6 and 17.7 mg/L in the C2 x 2 group. Concentrations >4-5 x MIC were seen in all pathogens, except Staphylococcus aureus, during 100% of infusion time.
CONCLUSION: The 2 x 7 h infusion of ceftazidime 2 g (C2 x 2) was clinically and bacteriologically as effective as the usual 3 x 2 g ceftazidime short-term infusion in the treatment of AECB, and demonstrated advantages in terms of pharmacodynamic parameters compared with the C3 x 2 regimen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12615868     DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkg111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  7 in total

1.  Continuous vs. intermittent cefotaxime administration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory tract infections: pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, bacterial susceptibility and clinical efficacy.

Authors:  A R H van Zanten; M Oudijk; M K E Nohlmans-Paulssen; Y G van der Meer; A R J Girbes; K H Polderman
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Beta-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis.

Authors:  Mohd H Abdul-Aziz; Helmi Sulaiman; Mohd-Basri Mat-Nor; Vineya Rai; Kang K Wong; Mohd S Hasan; Azrin N Abd Rahman; Janattul A Jamal; Steven C Wallis; Jeffrey Lipman; Christine E Staatz; Jason A Roberts
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  Continuous and Prolonged Intravenous β-Lactam Dosing: Implications for the Clinical Laboratory.

Authors:  Mordechai Grupper; Joseph L Kuti; David P Nicolau
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 4.  Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of severe acute infections.

Authors:  Jennifer Shiu; Erica Wang; Aaron M Tejani; Michael Wasdell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-03-28

5.  Continuous beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients: the clinical evidence.

Authors:  Mohd H Abdul-Aziz; Joel M Dulhunty; Rinaldo Bellomo; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 6.925

Review 6.  Does prolonged β-lactam infusions improve clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusions? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.

Authors:  Pranita D Tamma; Nirupama Putcha; Yong D Suh; Kyle J Van Arendonk; Michael L Rinke
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 3.090

7.  Clinical and microbiological efficacy of continuous versus intermittent application of meropenem in critically ill patients: a randomized open-label controlled trial.

Authors:  Ivan Chytra; Martin Stepan; Jan Benes; Petr Pelnar; Alexandra Zidkova; Tamara Bergerova; Richard Pradl; Eduard Kasal
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 9.097

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.