S Leroux1, E Jacqz-Aigrain1, V Elie, F Legrand1, C Barin-Le Guellec2, B Aurich1, V Biran3, B Dusang4, S Goudjil5, S Coopman6, R Garcia Sanchez7, W Zhao1, P Manzoni8. 1. Department of Pediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics, Clinical Investigation Center 1426 Robert-Debré Paediatric Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 2. EA4245, Faculté de Médecine, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France. 3. UMR 1141 INSERM, Université Paris 7-Diderot, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Robert-Debré Paediatric Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 4. Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, CHU de La Réunion, Saint Pierre, La Réunion, France. 5. Neonatal Care Unit, CHU Amiens, Amiens, France. 6. Centre d'Investigation Clinique, CIC1403, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. 7. Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Spain. 8. Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, S. Anna Hospital, Torino, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS: The pharmacokinetics (PK) of fluconazole and micafungin differ in neonates compared with children and adults. Dosing instructions in product labels appear to be inconsistent with the emerging scientific evidence. Limited information is available on the safety profile of these agents in neonates. Our objective was to study the population PK and safety of both drugs, randomly administered in neonates with suspected or confirmed systemic candidiasis. METHODS:Neonates were randomized 1:1 to fluconazole (loading dose 25 mg kg-1 ; maintenance dose 12 mg kg-1 day-1 or 20 mg kg-1 day-1 , respectively, for infants <30 weeks or ≥30 weeks' corrected gestational age) or micafungin (loading dose 15 mg kg-1 day-1 ; maintenance dose 10 mg kg-1 day-1 ). PK samples were taken on treatment days 1 and 5. Population parameters were determined using NONMEM and Monte Carlo simulations performed to reach predefined targets. Clinical and laboratory data, and adverse events were collected up to 36 weeks' corrected gestational age or hospital discharge. RESULTS:Thirty-six neonates were enrolled. The median (range) gestational age was 28.2 (24.1-40.1) and 26.8 (23.5-40.0) weeks for fluconazole and micafungin, respectively. Based on 163 PK samples, the median population clearance (l h-1 kg-1 ) and volume of distribution (l kg-1 ) for fluconazole were: 0.015 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.008, 0.039] and 0.913, and for micafungin were: 0.020 (95% CI 0.010, 0.023) and 0.354 (95% CI 0.225, 0.482), respectively. The loading dose was well tolerated. No adverse events associated with micafungin or fluconazole were reported. CONCLUSION: Based on Monte Carlo simulations, a loading dose for fluconazole and dosing higher than recommended for both drugs are required to increase the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve target attainment rate in neonates.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The pharmacokinetics (PK) of fluconazole and micafungin differ in neonates compared with children and adults. Dosing instructions in product labels appear to be inconsistent with the emerging scientific evidence. Limited information is available on the safety profile of these agents in neonates. Our objective was to study the population PK and safety of both drugs, randomly administered in neonates with suspected or confirmed systemic candidiasis. METHODS: Neonates were randomized 1:1 to fluconazole (loading dose 25 mg kg-1 ; maintenance dose 12 mg kg-1 day-1 or 20 mg kg-1 day-1 , respectively, for infants <30 weeks or ≥30 weeks' corrected gestational age) or micafungin (loading dose 15 mg kg-1 day-1 ; maintenance dose 10 mg kg-1 day-1 ). PK samples were taken on treatment days 1 and 5. Population parameters were determined using NONMEM and Monte Carlo simulations performed to reach predefined targets. Clinical and laboratory data, and adverse events were collected up to 36 weeks' corrected gestational age or hospital discharge. RESULTS: Thirty-six neonates were enrolled. The median (range) gestational age was 28.2 (24.1-40.1) and 26.8 (23.5-40.0) weeks for fluconazole and micafungin, respectively. Based on 163 PK samples, the median population clearance (l h-1 kg-1 ) and volume of distribution (l kg-1 ) for fluconazole were: 0.015 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.008, 0.039] and 0.913, and for micafungin were: 0.020 (95% CI 0.010, 0.023) and 0.354 (95% CI 0.225, 0.482), respectively. The loading dose was well tolerated. No adverse events associated with micafungin or fluconazole were reported. CONCLUSION: Based on Monte Carlo simulations, a loading dose for fluconazole and dosing higher than recommended for both drugs are required to increase the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve target attainment rate in neonates.
Authors: K C Wade; D Wu; D A Kaufman; R M Ward; D K Benjamin; J E Sullivan; N Ramey; B Jayaraman; K Hoppu; P C Adamson; M R Gastonguay; J S Barrett Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: M Puig-Asensio; B Padilla; J Garnacho-Montero; O Zaragoza; J M Aguado; R Zaragoza; M Montejo; P Muñoz; I Ruiz-Camps; M Cuenca-Estrella; B Almirante Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: J H Rex; T J Walsh; J D Sobel; S G Filler; P G Pappas; W E Dismukes; J E Edwards Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2000-04-20 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: C Oeser; S Vergnano; R Naidoo; M Anthony; J Chang; P Chow; P Clarke; N Embleton; N Kennea; S Pattnayak; B Reichert; T Scorrer; I Tiron; T Watts; M Sharland; P T Heath Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Peter G Pappas; Carol A Kauffman; David R Andes; Cornelius J Clancy; Kieren A Marr; Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner; Annette C Reboli; Mindy G Schuster; Jose A Vazquez; Thomas J Walsh; Theoklis E Zaoutis; Jack D Sobel Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Julie Autmizguine; Jeffrey T Guptill; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez; Daniel K Benjamin; Edmund V Capparelli Journal: Drugs Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 11.431
Authors: Cinzia Auriti; Bianca Maria Goffredo; Maria Paola Ronchetti; Fiammetta Piersigilli; Sara Cairoli; Iliana Bersani; Andrea Dotta; Manjunath P Pai Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: S Leroux; E Jacqz-Aigrain; V Elie; F Legrand; C Barin-Le Guellec; B Aurich; V Biran; B Dusang; S Goudjil; S Coopman; R Garcia Sanchez; W Zhao; P Manzoni Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Didi Bury; Wim J E Tissing; Eline W Muilwijk; Tom F W Wolfs; Roger J Brüggemann Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.577
Authors: Natalia Sutiman; Janine Cynthia Koh; Kevin Watt; Christoph Hornik; Beverly Murphy; Yoke Hwee Chan; Jan Hau Lee Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: S S Haslund-Krog; I M Jorgensen; T B Henriksen; K Dalhoff; N M Debes; J van den Anker; H Holst Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-06-21