Sarah Wilkes1, Inge van Berlo2, Jaap Ten Oever3, Frank Jansman4, Rob Ter Heine5. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands. Electronic address: wilkes.s@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands; Unit of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology & Economics, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy (GRIP), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to describe the population pharmacokinetics of total and unbound flucloxacillin in non-critically ill patients, and to devise a rational continuous dosing regimen for this population. METHODS: Total and unbound flucloxacillin pharmacokinetics in 30 non-critically ill patients receiving intravenous flucloxacillin were analysed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. Monte Carlo simulation was used to assess the fraction of the population reaching effective unbound flucloxacillin levels and the fraction reaching potential neurotoxic exposure for various continuous dosing regimens. RESULTS: The observed protein binding varied between 64.6-97.1%. The unbound fraction was significantly associated with serum albumin and was concentration-dependent. The parameter estimates of the final model were: Cltotal 122 L/h, Clrenal 1.41 L/h, Vc 190 L, Vp 33.9 L, Q 16.8 L/h, Kd 9.63 mg/L, θBmax 177 mg/L,θalb 0.054. A continuous dose of 6 g/24 hours was sufficient for 100% of the population to obtain a unbound concentration of > 0.25 mg/L. With 14 g/24 h, 91.2% of the population was predicted to reach concentrations of > 2 mg/L, the clinical breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus. Potential toxic unbound flucloxacillin levels were reached in 2.0% of the population with 6 g/24 h, and 24.1% with 14 g/24 h. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a continuous infusion of 6 g/24 h flucloxacillin is sufficient to treat most infections in non-critically ill patients. With this dosing regimen, an unbound serum concentration flucloxacillin > 0.25 mg/L was reached in 100% of the patients, with minimal chance of neurotoxicity.
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to describe the population pharmacokinetics of total and unbound flucloxacillin in non-critically ill patients, and to devise a rational continuous dosing regimen for this population. METHODS: Total and unbound flucloxacillin pharmacokinetics in 30 non-critically ill patients receiving intravenous flucloxacillin were analysed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. Monte Carlo simulation was used to assess the fraction of the population reaching effective unbound flucloxacillin levels and the fraction reaching potential neurotoxic exposure for various continuous dosing regimens. RESULTS: The observed protein binding varied between 64.6-97.1%. The unbound fraction was significantly associated with serum albumin and was concentration-dependent. The parameter estimates of the final model were: Cltotal 122 L/h, Clrenal 1.41 L/h, Vc 190 L, Vp 33.9 L, Q 16.8 L/h, Kd 9.63 mg/L, θBmax 177 mg/L,θalb 0.054. A continuous dose of 6 g/24 hours was sufficient for 100% of the population to obtain a unbound concentration of > 0.25 mg/L. With 14 g/24 h, 91.2% of the population was predicted to reach concentrations of > 2 mg/L, the clinical breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus. Potential toxic unbound flucloxacillin levels were reached in 2.0% of the population with 6 g/24 h, and 24.1% with 14 g/24 h. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a continuous infusion of 6 g/24 h flucloxacillin is sufficient to treat most infections in non-critically ill patients. With this dosing regimen, an unbound serum concentration flucloxacillin > 0.25 mg/L was reached in 100% of the patients, with minimal chance of neurotoxicity.
Authors: C Jongmans; A E Muller; P Van Den Broek; B De Melo Cruz De Almeida; C Van Den Berg; J Van Oldenrijk; P K Bos; B C P Koch Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 5.988
Authors: Jaap Ten Oever; Joëll L Jansen; Thomas W van der Vaart; Jeroen A Schouten; Marlies E J L Hulscher; Annelies Verbon Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Nynke G L Jager; Reinier M van Hest; Jiao Xie; Gloria Wong; Marta Ulldemolins; Roger J M Brüggemann; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Eveline Wallenburg; Rob Ter Heine; Dylan W de Lange; Henk van Leeuwen; Jeroen A Schouten; Jaap Ten Oever; Eva Kolwijck; David M Burger; Peter Pickkers; Emilie M Gieling; Monique M de Maat; Tim Frenzel; Roger J Brüggemann Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Eveline E Roelofsen; Brenda C M de Winter; Heleen van der Spek; Susan Snijders; Birgit C P Koch; Sanne van den Berg; Anouk E Muller Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: E Wallenburg; R J Brüggemann; K Asouit; M Teulen; A F J de Haan; E J F Franssen; R E Aarnoutse Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 5.790