Literature DB >> 28516432

Measurement of piperacillin plasma concentrations in cancer patients with suspected infection.

Tobias Rachow1,2, Verena Schlüter3, Sibylle Bremer-Streck4, Udo Lindig3, Sebastian Scholl3, Peter Schlattmann5, Michael Kiehntopf4, Andreas Hochhaus3, Marie von Lilienfeld-Toal3,6,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Piperacillin (PIP) in combination with tazobactam is commonly used for anti-infective treatment in cancer patients. PIP exerts a time-dependent killing. Thus, the maintenance of plasma concentrations above a pre-defined target concentration for a pre-defined time may be relevant for optimal efficacy. It is assumed that PIP-plasma concentrations above the clinical breakpoint of the target pathogen [Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinical breakpoint at minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) 16 mg/L] should be reached for 100% of the dosing interval or >4xMIC (64 mg/L) for 50% of the dosing interval. Whereas studies in the intensive-care setting have shown underdosing in patients with sepsis, little is known about PIP-plasma concentrations in cancer patients.
METHODS: Data of 56 cancer patients who received piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ, 4.5 g three times daily) as empiric therapy for suspected infection were analysed at baseline and 4 h after the infusion.
RESULTS: Median trough concentrations in steady state [median 3 days (IQR 3-5) after start of PIP/TAZ] were 4.6 mg/L (95% CI 0.3-136.3) and median PIP-plasma concentrations 4 h after infusion were 46.2 mg/L (95% CI 10.1-285.6). A second evaluation 5 days (IQR 4-7) after start of PIP/TAZ confirmed these results: trough concentrations were 2.7 mg/L (95% CI 0.5-6.3), concentrations after 4 h 28.0 mg/L (95% CI 1.7-47.3). A good renal function was associated with lower plasma concentrations (r = -0.388, p < 0.003). Detailed pharmacokinetic measurements in six patients showed low maximum plasma concentration (median 165 mg/L) and a rapid decline of plasma concentrations (median plasma half time 1.38 h).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, piperacillin plasma concentrations in cancer patients are below target levels warranting prospective trials to investigate therapeutic drug monitoring.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer patients; Piperacillin; Plasma concentrations; Therapeutic drug monitoring

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28516432     DOI: 10.1007/s15010-017-1026-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infection        ISSN: 0300-8126            Impact factor:   3.553


  34 in total

1.  Augmented renal clearance in the Intensive Care Unit: an illustrative case series.

Authors:  Andrew A Udy; Michael T Putt; Sulochana Shanmugathasan; Jason A Roberts; Jeffrey Lipman
Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents       Date:  2010-03-21       Impact factor: 5.283

2.  Very high GFR in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: prevalence, carboplatin dosing patterns and chemotherapy toxicity.

Authors:  Amitesh Chandra Roy; David Neil Jones; John P Slavotinek; Ganessan Kichenadasse; Chris Karapetis; Earl Lam; Sarwan Bishnoi; Bogda Koczwara
Journal:  Asia Pac J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.601

3.  Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. The International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Maligne dell'Adulto Infection Program.

Authors:  A Cometta; T Calandra; H Gaya; S H Zinner; R de Bock; A Del Favero; G Bucaneve; F Crokaert; W V Kern; J Klastersky; I Langenaeken; A Micozzi; A Padmos; M Paesmans; C Viscoli; M P Glauser
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Comparative pharmacokinetics of piperacillin in normals and in patients with renal failure.

Authors:  P J De Schepper; T B Tjandramaga; A Mullie; R Verbesselt; A van Hecken; R Verberckmoes; L Verbist
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 5.790

5.  Nosocomial infections in leukemic and solid-tumor cancer patients: distribution, outcome and microbial spectrum of anaerobes.

Authors:  Amany El-Sharif; Walid F Elkhatib; Hossam M Ashour
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.165

Review 6.  Evidence-based approach to treatment of febrile neutropenia in hematologic malignancies.

Authors:  Juan Gea-Banacloche
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2013

7.  Cefepime monotherapy is as effective as ceftriaxone plus amikacin in pediatric patients with cancer and high-risk febrile neutropenia in a randomized comparison.

Authors:  Carlos Alberto Pires Pereira; Antonio Sérgio Petrilli; Fabianne Altruda Carlesse; Flávio Augusto Vercillo Luisi; Kátia Verônica Torres Barros da Silva; Maria Lúcia de Martino Lee
Journal:  J Microbiol Immunol Infect       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.399

8.  Insufficient β-lactam concentrations in the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock.

Authors:  Fabio Silvio Taccone; Pierre-François Laterre; Thierry Dugernier; Herbert Spapen; Isabelle Delattre; Xavier Wittebole; Daniel De Backer; Brice Layeux; Pierre Wallemacq; Jean-Louis Vincent; Frédérique Jacobs
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 9.  Infusional β-lactam antibiotics in febrile neutropenia: has the time come?

Authors:  Iain J Abbott; Jason A Roberts
Journal:  Curr Opin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.915

Review 10.  Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia.

Authors:  Mical Paul; Yaakov Dickstein; Agata Schlesinger; Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg; Karla Soares-Weiser; Leonard Leibovici
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.