V Ramos-Martín1,2, M N Neely3, P McGowan4, S Siner2, K Padmore2, M Peak2, M W Beresford2,5, M A Turner4,5, S Paulus2, W W Hope6. 1. Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology Department, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 2. Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. 3. Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics and Bioinformatics, The Saban Research Institute and The Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. 5. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 6. Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology Department, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK william.hope@liverpool.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is uncertainty about the optimal teicoplanin regimens for neonates. The study aim was to determine the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of teicoplanin in neonates, evaluate currently recommended regimens and explore the exposure-effect relationships. METHODS: An open-label PK study was conducted. Neonates from 26 to 44 weeks post-menstrual age were recruited (n = 18). The teicoplanin regimen was a 16 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 8 mg/kg once daily. Therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustment were not conducted. A standard two-compartment PK model was developed, followed by models that incorporated weight. A PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) model with C-reactive protein serial measurements as the PD input was fitted to the data. Monte Carlo simulations (n = 5000) were performed using Pmetrics. The AUCs at steady state and the proportion of patients achieving the recommended drug exposures (i.e. Cmin >15 mg/L) were determined. The study was registered in the European Clinical Trials Database Registry (EudraCT: 2012-005738-12). RESULTS: The PK allometric model best accounted for the observed data. The PK parameters medians were: clearance = 0.435 × (weight/70)0.75 (L/h); volume = 0.765 (L); Kcp = 1.3 (h-1); and Kpc = 0.629 (h-1). The individual time-course of C-reactive protein was well described using the Bayesian posterior estimates for each patient. The simulated median AUC96-120 was 302.3 mg·h/L and the median Cmin at 120 h was 12.9 mg/L; 38.8% of patients attained a Cmin >15 mg/L by 120 h. CONCLUSIONS: Teicoplanin population PK is highly variable in neonates, weight being the best descriptor of PK variability. A low percentage of neonates were able to achieve Cmin >15 mg/L. The routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring and improved knowledge on the PD of teicoplanin is required.
OBJECTIVES: There is uncertainty about the optimal teicoplanin regimens for neonates. The study aim was to determine the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of teicoplanin in neonates, evaluate currently recommended regimens and explore the exposure-effect relationships. METHODS: An open-label PK study was conducted. Neonates from 26 to 44 weeks post-menstrual age were recruited (n = 18). The teicoplanin regimen was a 16 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 8 mg/kg once daily. Therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustment were not conducted. A standard two-compartment PK model was developed, followed by models that incorporated weight. A PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) model with C-reactive protein serial measurements as the PD input was fitted to the data. Monte Carlo simulations (n = 5000) were performed using Pmetrics. The AUCs at steady state and the proportion of patients achieving the recommended drug exposures (i.e. Cmin >15 mg/L) were determined. The study was registered in the European Clinical Trials Database Registry (EudraCT: 2012-005738-12). RESULTS: The PK allometric model best accounted for the observed data. The PK parameters medians were: clearance = 0.435 × (weight/70)0.75 (L/h); volume = 0.765 (L); Kcp = 1.3 (h-1); and Kpc = 0.629 (h-1). The individual time-course of C-reactive protein was well described using the Bayesian posterior estimates for each patient. The simulated median AUC96-120 was 302.3 mg·h/L and the median Cmin at 120 h was 12.9 mg/L; 38.8% of patients attained a Cmin >15 mg/L by 120 h. CONCLUSIONS:Teicoplanin population PK is highly variable in neonates, weight being the best descriptor of PK variability. A low percentage of neonates were able to achieve Cmin >15 mg/L. The routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring and improved knowledge on the PD of teicoplanin is required.
Authors: Michael N Neely; Gilmer Youn; Brenda Jones; Roger W Jelliffe; George L Drusano; Keith A Rodvold; Thomas P Lodise Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Gudrun Würthwein; Andreas H Groll; Georg Hempel; Felice C Adler-Shohet; Jay M Lieberman; Thomas J Walsh Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: T Tängdén; V Ramos Martín; T W Felton; E I Nielsen; S Marchand; R J Brüggemann; J B Bulitta; M Bassetti; U Theuretzbacher; B T Tsuji; D W Wareham; L E Friberg; J J De Waele; V H Tam; Jason A Roberts Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: A Kontou; K Sarafidis; O Begou; H G Gika; A Tsiligiannis; K Ogungbenro; A Dokoumetzidis; E Agakidou; E Roilides Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Dan Sun; Tao Zhang; Jie Mi; Yuzhu Dong; Yang Liu; Ying Zhang; Di Zhang; Taotao Wang; Hua Cheng; Yalin Dong Journal: Infect Drug Resist Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Timothy M Rawson; Esmita Charani; Luke S P Moore; Mark Gilchrist; Pantelis Georgiou; William Hope; Alison H Holmes Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Timothy M Rawson; Richard C Wilson; Danny O'Hare; Pau Herrero; Andrew Kambugu; Mohammed Lamorde; Matthew Ellington; Pantelis Georgiou; Anthony Cass; William W Hope; Alison H Holmes Journal: Nat Rev Microbiol Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 60.633
Authors: T M Rawson; D O'Hare; P Herrero; S Sharma; L S P Moore; E de Barra; J A Roberts; A C Gordon; W Hope; P Georgiou; A E G Cass; A H Holmes Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: V Ramos-Martín; M N Neely; K Padmore; M Peak; M W Beresford; M A Turner; S Paulus; J López-Herce; W W Hope Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 5.191