BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime and meropenem are frequently used in the empirical treatment of hospital-acquired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infections. Although their dispositions in CSF have been described, the ability of these agents to achieve critical pharmacodynamic targets against the array of nosocomial CSF Gram-negative bacteria encountered in practice has not been reported. METHODS: Serum and CSF pharmacokinetic data were obtained from hospital patients with external ventricular drains and who received ceftazidime or meropenem. Concentration-time profiles in serum and CSF were modelled using a three-compartment model with zero-order infusion and first-order elimination and transfer. The model parameters were identified using population pharmacokinetic analysis [Big Non-Parametric Adaptive Grid (BigNPAG)]. A Monte Carlo simulation (9999 subjects) estimated the probability of target attainment (PTA) for total drug CSF concentrations at 50% and 100% T(>MIC) for ceftazidime 2 g intravenously every 8 h and meropenem 2 g intravenously every 8 h. The Gram-negative infection isolates of the seven most prevalent Gram-negative bacilli from the Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection Program were used as a measure of contemporary MIC distribution. RESULTS: Post-Bayesian measures of bias and precision, observed-predicted plots and R(2) values were highly acceptable for both drugs. Although the PTA in CSF was approximately one dilution higher for ceftazidime compared with meropenem at a given MIC value, the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) in CSF against all Gram-negatives was markedly higher for meropenem when compared with ceftazidime secondary to the higher occurrence of lower MIC values for meropenem. Both agents had a low CFR against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacodynamics of meropenem was superior to that of ceftazidime against Gram-negative pathogens in the CSF.
BACKGROUND:Ceftazidime and meropenem are frequently used in the empirical treatment of hospital-acquired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infections. Although their dispositions in CSF have been described, the ability of these agents to achieve critical pharmacodynamic targets against the array of nosocomial CSF Gram-negative bacteria encountered in practice has not been reported. METHODS: Serum and CSF pharmacokinetic data were obtained from hospital patients with external ventricular drains and who received ceftazidime or meropenem. Concentration-time profiles in serum and CSF were modelled using a three-compartment model with zero-order infusion and first-order elimination and transfer. The model parameters were identified using population pharmacokinetic analysis [Big Non-Parametric Adaptive Grid (BigNPAG)]. A Monte Carlo simulation (9999 subjects) estimated the probability of target attainment (PTA) for total drug CSF concentrations at 50% and 100% T(>MIC) for ceftazidime 2 g intravenously every 8 h and meropenem 2 g intravenously every 8 h. The Gram-negative infection isolates of the seven most prevalent Gram-negative bacilli from the Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection Program were used as a measure of contemporary MIC distribution. RESULTS: Post-Bayesian measures of bias and precision, observed-predicted plots and R(2) values were highly acceptable for both drugs. Although the PTA in CSF was approximately one dilution higher for ceftazidime compared with meropenem at a given MIC value, the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) in CSF against all Gram-negatives was markedly higher for meropenem when compared with ceftazidime secondary to the higher occurrence of lower MIC values for meropenem. Both agents had a low CFR against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacodynamics of meropenem was superior to that of ceftazidime against Gram-negative pathogens in the CSF.
Authors: Dagan O Lonsdale; Emma H Baker; Karin Kipper; Charlotte Barker; Barbara Philips; Andrew Rhodes; Mike Sharland; Joseph F Standing Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Antonello Di Paolo; Giovanni Gori; Carlo Tascini; Romano Danesi; Mario Del Tacca Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Baek-Nam Kim; Anton Y Peleg; Thomas P Lodise; Jeffrey Lipman; Jian Li; Roger Nation; David L Paterson Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: D C Richter; A Heininger; T Brenner; M Hochreiter; M Bernhard; J Briegel; S Dubler; B Grabein; A Hecker; W A Kruger; K Mayer; M W Pletz; D Storzinger; N Pinder; T Hoppe-Tichy; S Weiterer; S Zimmermann; A Brinkmann; M A Weigand; C Lichtenstern Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Mathias Wittau; Jan Scheele; Max Kurlbaum; Claas Brockschmidt; Anna M Wolf; Evelyn Hemper; Doris Henne-Bruns; Jürgen B Bulitta Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: D C Richter; A Heininger; T Brenner; M Hochreiter; M Bernhard; J Briegel; S Dubler; B Grabein; A Hecker; W A Krüger; K Mayer; M W Pletz; D Störzinger; N Pinder; T Hoppe-Tichy; S Weiterer; S Zimmermann; A Brinkmann; M A Weigand; Christoph Lichtenstern Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.041