Juliana F Roos1, Jeffrey Lipman2, Carl M J Kirkpatrick3. 1. School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, 4072, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. jroos@pharmacy.uq.edu.au. 2. Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Queensland and Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane Hospital, 4029, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, 4072, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a population pharmacokinetics model for cefpirome in ICU patients, to assess pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profiles vs. MIC distribution of likely ICU pathogens, and to assess their expected cumulative fraction of response (CFR). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational study in a multidisciplinary ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Twelve patients received 2g cefpirome intravenously over 12h. Thirteen blood samples were taken on two occasions. Demographic and creatinine clearance data were collected. Based on the final covariate model obtained using NONMEM, Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken to simulate free-drug concentrations for two administration methods: intermittent bolus administration (IBA) and continuous infusion (CI) with a loading dose of 0.5 g. Concentration-time profiles were evaluated by the probability of achieving free-drug concentrations above the MIC for more than 65% of dosing interval. Using MIC distributions from the EUCAST programme the CFR for each method was evaluated. A three-compartment model with zero-order input best described the concentration-time data. The CFR for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. was greater than 97% in all IBA and CI doses but for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter spp. achieved target concentrations of 56% and 46%, respectively. High-dose CI cefpirome (6g/day) for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. was required to achieve CFR of 89%. CONCLUSION: Measured creatinine clearance appears to be a good marker of cefpirome clearance and potentially could be used to individualise cefpirome therapy. When given as IBA or CI for E. coli and Klebsiella spp., cefpirome should be successful. Cefpirome fails to achieve the bactericidal target even when administered at high-doses such as 6g/day for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. Prospective clinical studies are needed to conclusively validate these findings.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a population pharmacokinetics model for cefpirome in ICU patients, to assess pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profiles vs. MIC distribution of likely ICU pathogens, and to assess their expected cumulative fraction of response (CFR). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational study in a multidisciplinary ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Twelve patients received 2g cefpirome intravenously over 12h. Thirteen blood samples were taken on two occasions. Demographic and creatinine clearance data were collected. Based on the final covariate model obtained using NONMEM, Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken to simulate free-drug concentrations for two administration methods: intermittent bolus administration (IBA) and continuous infusion (CI) with a loading dose of 0.5 g. Concentration-time profiles were evaluated by the probability of achieving free-drug concentrations above the MIC for more than 65% of dosing interval. Using MIC distributions from the EUCAST programme the CFR for each method was evaluated. A three-compartment model with zero-order input best described the concentration-time data. The CFR for Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. was greater than 97% in all IBA and CI doses but for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter spp. achieved target concentrations of 56% and 46%, respectively. High-dose CI cefpirome (6g/day) for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. was required to achieve CFR of 89%. CONCLUSION: Measured creatinine clearance appears to be a good marker of cefpirome clearance and potentially could be used to individualise cefpirome therapy. When given as IBA or CI for E. coli and Klebsiella spp., cefpirome should be successful. Cefpirome fails to achieve the bactericidal target even when administered at high-doses such as 6g/day for P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. Prospective clinical studies are needed to conclusively validate these findings.
Authors: Johan W Mouton; Michael N Dudley; Otto Cars; Hartmut Derendorf; George L Drusano Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jin Wi; Min Jung Chang; Soyoung Kang; June Young Jang; Jongsung Hahn; Dasohm Kim; Jun Yeong Lee; Kyoung Lok Min; Seungwon Yang Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: J B Bulitta; M Kinzig; C B Landersdorfer; U Holzgrabe; U Stephan; F Sörgel Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jason A Roberts; Michael S Roberts; Andrew Semark; Andrew A Udy; Carl Mj Kirkpatrick; David L Paterson; Matthew J Roberts; Peter Kruger; Jeffrey Lipman Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2011-02-20 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Fekade Bruck Sime; Michael S Roberts; Sandra L Peake; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Mieke Carlier; Sofie Carrette; Jason A Roberts; Veronique Stove; Alain Verstraete; Eric Hoste; Pieter Depuydt; Johan Decruyenaere; Jeffrey Lipman; Steven C Wallis; Jan J De Waele Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 9.097