Mohammad H Al-Shaer1, Wael A Alghamdi2, Emily Graham1, Charles A Peloquin1. 1. Infectious Disease Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, College of Pharmacy, Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida; and. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mortality rate of patients with a drug-resistant bacterial infection is high, as are the associated treatment costs. To overcome these issues, optimization of the available therapeutic options is required. Beta-lactams are time-dependent antibiotics and their efficacy is determined by the amount of time the free concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the extent and variability of protein binding for meropenem, cefepime, and piperacillin. METHODS: Plasma samples for the analysis of meropenem, cefepime, and piperacillin were collected from patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital as part of the standard care. The bound and unbound drug fractions in the samples were separated by ultrafiltration. Validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assays were used to quantify the total and free plasma concentrations, and the protein binding was determined. RESULTS: Samples from 95 patients were analyzed. The median (range) age of patients was 56 years (17-87) and the median (range) body mass index was 25.7 kg/m (14.7-74.2). Approximately 59% of the patients were men. The median (range) unbound fraction (fu) was 62.5% (41.6-99.1) for meropenem, 61.4% (51.6-99.2) for cefepime, and 48.3% (39.4-71.3) for piperacillin. In the bivariate analysis, as the total meropenem concentration increased, the fu increased (r = 0.37, P = 0.045). A decrease in piperacillin fu was observed as the albumin concentration increased (r = -0.56, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The average fu values were lower than those reported in the literature. There was also a large variability in fu; hence, it should be considered when managing patients administered with these drugs through direct measurements of free drug concentrations.
BACKGROUND: The mortality rate of patients with a drug-resistant bacterial infection is high, as are the associated treatment costs. To overcome these issues, optimization of the available therapeutic options is required. Beta-lactams are time-dependent antibiotics and their efficacy is determined by the amount of time the free concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the extent and variability of protein binding for meropenem, cefepime, and piperacillin. METHODS: Plasma samples for the analysis of meropenem, cefepime, and piperacillin were collected from patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital as part of the standard care. The bound and unbound drug fractions in the samples were separated by ultrafiltration. Validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assays were used to quantify the total and free plasma concentrations, and the protein binding was determined. RESULTS: Samples from 95 patients were analyzed. The median (range) age of patients was 56 years (17-87) and the median (range) body mass index was 25.7 kg/m (14.7-74.2). Approximately 59% of the patients were men. The median (range) unbound fraction (fu) was 62.5% (41.6-99.1) for meropenem, 61.4% (51.6-99.2) for cefepime, and 48.3% (39.4-71.3) for piperacillin. In the bivariate analysis, as the total meropenem concentration increased, the fu increased (r = 0.37, P = 0.045). A decrease in piperacillin fu was observed as the albumin concentration increased (r = -0.56, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The average fu values were lower than those reported in the literature. There was also a large variability in fu; hence, it should be considered when managing patients administered with these drugs through direct measurements of free drug concentrations.
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: 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: Sonya C Tang Girdwood; Peter H Tang; Mark E Murphy; Andrea R Chamberlain; Laura A Benken; Rhonda L Jones; Erin M Stoneman; Jennifer M Kaplan; Alexander A Vinks Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Samit Ganguly; Andrea N Edginton; Jacqueline G Gerhart; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez; Rachel G Greenberg; Daniel Gonzalez Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 5.577