Nathaniel J Rhodes1, Joseph L Kuti2, David P Nicolau2, Michael N Neely3, Anthony M Nicasio4, Marc H Scheetz5. 1. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Midwestern University, Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, IL, USA; Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA. 3. University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics and Bioinformatics (LAPKB), Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Albany, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Midwestern University, Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, IL, USA; Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: mscheetz@nm.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cefepime trough concentrations >22 mg/L (T(>22)) have been associated with neurotoxicity in a single study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Neurotoxicity outcomes for 28 cefepime-treated adult patients with febrile neutropenia were abstracted from the literature. The precision of T(>22) to predict neurotoxicity was quantified using 95% confidence intervals. Thirty-two cefepime-treated patients contributed serum concentrations for a pharmacokinetic model, fit using the Nonparametric Adaptive Grid algorithm within the Pmetrics package for R. Concentration-time curves were simulated for common dosing schemes and 3 renal dispositions. Probabilities of neurotoxicity and numbers needed to harm were calculated from simulations according to the proposed pharmacokinetic/toxicodynamic threshold of T(>22). Bayesian modeling was utilized to explore other pharmacokinetic parameters relationships with neurotoxicity. RESULTS: The mean probability of neurotoxicity at T(>22) was 51.4% (95% CI: 16.4-85.0%). Among the schemes and renal dispositions simulated, the combination of cefepime 2 g every 8 h and a creatinine clearance of 60 mL/min produced the greatest probability of neurotoxicity (48.3%). Estimated numbers needed to harm according to T(>22) ranged from 2.1 to 18.5 persons. Explorations of maximal serum concentration and area under the curve demonstrated high levels of collinearity, making it impossible to identify trough concentrations as the driver of neurotoxicity. DISCUSSION: T(>22) had low precision as a predictive neurotoxic threshold. When a neurotoxic threshold of T(>22) was assumed, projected neurotoxicity rates and numbers needed to harm greatly exceeded observed neurotoxicity rates in the general population and in high risk subpopulations. Other drug exposure metrics should be explored.
INTRODUCTION:Cefepime trough concentrations >22 mg/L (T(>22)) have been associated with neurotoxicity in a single study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Neurotoxicity outcomes for 28 cefepime-treated adult patients with febrile neutropenia were abstracted from the literature. The precision of T(>22) to predict neurotoxicity was quantified using 95% confidence intervals. Thirty-two cefepime-treated patients contributed serum concentrations for a pharmacokinetic model, fit using the Nonparametric Adaptive Grid algorithm within the Pmetrics package for R. Concentration-time curves were simulated for common dosing schemes and 3 renal dispositions. Probabilities of neurotoxicity and numbers needed to harm were calculated from simulations according to the proposed pharmacokinetic/toxicodynamic threshold of T(>22). Bayesian modeling was utilized to explore other pharmacokinetic parameters relationships with neurotoxicity. RESULTS: The mean probability of neurotoxicity at T(>22) was 51.4% (95% CI: 16.4-85.0%). Among the schemes and renal dispositions simulated, the combination of cefepime 2 g every 8 h and a creatinine clearance of 60 mL/min produced the greatest probability of neurotoxicity (48.3%). Estimated numbers needed to harm according to T(>22) ranged from 2.1 to 18.5 persons. Explorations of maximal serum concentration and area under the curve demonstrated high levels of collinearity, making it impossible to identify trough concentrations as the driver of neurotoxicity. DISCUSSION: T(>22) had low precision as a predictive neurotoxic threshold. When a neurotoxic threshold of T(>22) was assumed, projected neurotoxicity rates and numbers needed to harm greatly exceeded observed neurotoxicity rates in the general population and in high risk subpopulations. Other drug exposure metrics should be explored.
Authors: Mohammad H Al-Shaer; Michael N Neely; Jiajun Liu; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; Veena Venugopalan; Nathaniel J Rhodes; Kenneth Klinker; Marc H Scheetz; Charles A Peloquin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Gwendolyn M Pais; Jack Chang; Erin F Barreto; Gideon Stitt; Kevin J Downes; Mohammad H Alshaer; Emily Lesnicki; Vaidehi Panchal; Maria Bruzzone; Argyle V Bumanglag; Sara N Burke; Marc H Scheetz Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.577
Authors: Mohammad H Alshaer; Sylvain Goutelle; Barbara A Santevecchi; Bethany R Shoulders; Veena Venugopalan; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; Jiajun Liu; Patrick J Kiel; Jason A Roberts; Fekade Bruck Sime; Marc H Scheetz; Michael N Neely; Charles A Peloquin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Lauren E Payne; David J Gagnon; Richard R Riker; David B Seder; Elizabeth K Glisic; Jane G Morris; Gilles L Fraser Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ayesha A Appa; Rupali Jain; Robert M Rakita; Shahin Hakimian; Paul S Pottinger Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Jiajun Liu; Michael Neely; Jeffrey Lipman; Fekade Sime; Jason A Roberts; Patrick J Kiel; Sean N Avedissian; Nathaniel J Rhodes; Marc H Scheetz Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Fumiya Ebihara; Yukihiro Hamada; Hideo Kato; Takumi Maruyama; Toshimi Kimura Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 3.390