Amelia Ramon-Lopez1, Jane M Allen2, Alison H Thomson3, Bajlit S Dheansa4, S Elizabeth James5, Geoff W Hanlon5, Bruce Stewart6, J Graham Davies7. 1. Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Division of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutics, Department of Engineering, Miguel Hernandez University, Alicante, Spain. 2. Pharmacy Department, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, UK jane.allen4@nhs.net. 3. Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Pharmacy Department, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK. 4. Burns Centre, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, UK. 5. School of Pharmacy & Biomolecular Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK. 6. Department of Microbiology, Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Redhill, UK. 7. Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a population model to describe the pharmacokinetics (PK) of intravenous meropenem in adult patients with severe burns and investigate potential relationships between dosage regimens and antimicrobial efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A dose of 1 g every 8 h was administered to adult patients with total body surface area burns of ≥15%. Doses for subsequent courses were determined using results from the initial course and the patient's clinical condition. Five plasma meropenem concentrations were typically measured over the dosage interval on one to four occasions. An open, two-compartment PK model was fitted to the meropenem concentrations using NONMEM and the effect of covariates on meropenem PK was investigated. Monte Carlo simulations investigated dosage regimens to achieve a target T>MIC for ≥40%, ≥60% or ≥80% of the dose interval. RESULTS: Data comprised 113 meropenem concentration measurements from 20 dosage intervals in 12 patients. The parameters were CL (L/h) = 0.196 L/h/kg × [1 - 0.023 × (age - 46)] × [1 - 0.049 × (albumin - 15)], V1 = 0.273 L/kg × [1 - 0.049 × (albumin - 15)], Q = 0.199 L/h/kg and V2 = 0.309 L/kg × [1 - 0.049 × (albumin - 15)]. For a target of ≥80% T>MIC, the breakpoint was 8 mg/L for doses of 1 g every 4 h and 2 g every 8 h given over 3 h, but only 4 mg/L if given over 5 min. CONCLUSIONS: Although 1 g 8 hourly should be effective against Escherichia coli and CoNS, higher doses, ideally with a longer infusion time, would be more appropriate for empirical therapy, mixed infections and bacteria with MIC values ≥4 mg/L.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a population model to describe the pharmacokinetics (PK) of intravenous meropenem in adult patients with severe burns and investigate potential relationships between dosage regimens and antimicrobial efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A dose of 1 g every 8 h was administered to adult patients with total body surface area burns of ≥15%. Doses for subsequent courses were determined using results from the initial course and the patient's clinical condition. Five plasma meropenem concentrations were typically measured over the dosage interval on one to four occasions. An open, two-compartment PK model was fitted to the meropenem concentrations using NONMEM and the effect of covariates on meropenem PK was investigated. Monte Carlo simulations investigated dosage regimens to achieve a target T>MIC for ≥40%, ≥60% or ≥80% of the dose interval. RESULTS: Data comprised 113 meropenem concentration measurements from 20 dosage intervals in 12 patients. The parameters were CL (L/h) = 0.196 L/h/kg × [1 - 0.023 × (age - 46)] × [1 - 0.049 × (albumin - 15)], V1 = 0.273 L/kg × [1 - 0.049 × (albumin - 15)], Q = 0.199 L/h/kg and V2 = 0.309 L/kg × [1 - 0.049 × (albumin - 15)]. For a target of ≥80% T>MIC, the breakpoint was 8 mg/L for doses of 1 g every 4 h and 2 g every 8 h given over 3 h, but only 4 mg/L if given over 5 min. CONCLUSIONS: Although 1 g 8 hourly should be effective against Escherichia coli and CoNS, higher doses, ideally with a longer infusion time, would be more appropriate for empirical therapy, mixed infections and bacteria with MIC values ≥4 mg/L.
Authors: Martin Wiesholzer; Petra Pichler; Gottfried Reznicek; Michaela Wimmer; Manuel Kussmann; Peter Balcke; Heinz Burgmann; Markus Zeitlinger; Wolfgang Poeppl Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 5.191
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: Paul A Roberts; Ryan M Huebinger; Emma Keen; Anne-Marie Krachler; Sara Jabbari Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Daniel J Selig; Kevin S Akers; Kevin K Chung; Kaitlin A Pruskowski; Jeffrey R Livezey; Elaine D Por Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 3.716