Mieke Carlier1, Michaël Noë2, Jason A Roberts3, Veronique Stove4, Alain G Verstraete5, Jeffrey Lipman3, Jan J De Waele6. 1. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium mieke.carlier@ugent.be. 2. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 5. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Department of Laboratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the population pharmacokinetics of cefuroxime in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this observational pharmacokinetic study, multiple blood samples were taken over one dosing interval of intravenous cefuroxime. Blood samples were analysed using a validated ultra HPLC tandem mass spectrometry technique. Population pharmacokinetic analysis and dosing simulations were performed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty blood samples were collected from 20 patients. CL(CR) ranged between 10 and 304 mL/min. A two-compartment model with between-subject variability on CL, V of the central compartment and V of the peripheral compartment described the data adequately. Twenty-four hour urinary CL(CR) was supported as a descriptor of drug CL. The population model for CL was CL = θ(1) × CL(CR)/100, where θ(1) is the typical cefuroxime CL in the population, which is 9.0 L/h. The mean V was 22.5 L. Dosing simulations showed failure to achieve the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target of 65% fT(>MIC) for an MIC of 8 mg/L with standard dosing regimens for patients with CL(CR) ≥50 mL/min. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of standard doses by intermittent bolus is likely to result in underdosing for many critically ill patients. Continuous infusion of higher than normal doses after a loading dose is more likely to achieve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets. However, even continuous infusion of high doses (up to 9 g per day) does not guarantee adequate levels for all patients with a CL(CR) of ≥300 mL/min if the MIC is 8 mg/L.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the population pharmacokinetics of cefuroxime in critically illpatients. METHODS: In this observational pharmacokinetic study, multiple blood samples were taken over one dosing interval of intravenous cefuroxime. Blood samples were analysed using a validated ultra HPLC tandem mass spectrometry technique. Population pharmacokinetic analysis and dosing simulations were performed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty blood samples were collected from 20 patients. CL(CR) ranged between 10 and 304 mL/min. A two-compartment model with between-subject variability on CL, V of the central compartment and V of the peripheral compartment described the data adequately. Twenty-four hour urinary CL(CR) was supported as a descriptor of drug CL. The population model for CL was CL = θ(1) × CL(CR)/100, where θ(1) is the typical cefuroxime CL in the population, which is 9.0 L/h. The mean V was 22.5 L. Dosing simulations showed failure to achieve the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target of 65% fT(>MIC) for an MIC of 8 mg/L with standard dosing regimens for patients with CL(CR) ≥50 mL/min. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of standard doses by intermittent bolus is likely to result in underdosing for many critically illpatients. Continuous infusion of higher than normal doses after a loading dose is more likely to achieve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets. However, even continuous infusion of high doses (up to 9 g per day) does not guarantee adequate levels for all patients with a CL(CR) of ≥300 mL/min if the MIC is 8 mg/L.
Authors: A Hosmann; L C Ritscher; H Burgmann; Z Oesterreicher; W Jäger; S Poschner; E Knosp; A Reinprecht; A Gruber; M Zeitlinger Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Saeed A Alqahtani; Abdullah S Alsultan; Hussain M Alqattan; Ahmed Eldemerdash; Turki B Albacker Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Ralph Gertler; Michael Gruber; Gunther Wiesner; Stanislas Grassin-Delyle; Saïk Urien; Peter Tassani-Prell; Klaus Martin Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Abdul Haseeb; Hani Saleh Faidah; Saleh Alghamdi; Amal F Alotaibi; Mahmoud Essam Elrggal; Ahmad J Mahrous; Safa S Almarzoky Abuhussain; Najla A Obaid; Manal Algethamy; Abdullmoin AlQarni; Asim A Khogeer; Zikria Saleem; Muhammad Shahid Iqbal; Sami S Ashgar; Rozan Mohammad Radwan; Alaa Mutlaq; Nayyra Fatani; Aziz Sheikh Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 5.988
Authors: Brandon M Bordeau; Joseph Ryan Polli; Ferdinand Schweser; Hans Peter Grimm; Wolfgang F Richter; Joseph P Balthasar Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 5.923