Na He1,2,3, Shan Su1,2,3, Yingying Yan1,3, Wenxi Liu1, Suodi Zhai1,3. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Science, Peking University, Beijing, China. 3. Institute for Drug Evaluation, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China.
Abstract
Background: Various pharmacokinetic (PK) equations and software have been developed to individualize vancomycin dosing. However, the benefit of using any PK information to guide vancomycin dosing has not been fully elucidated. Objective: To appraise available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of individualized vancomycin dosing via PK tools. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and 2 Chinese literature databases were searched through August 1, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that reported the PK and clinical outcomes of individualized vancomycin dosing versus empirical dosing were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 21 studies involving 4346 patients were finally included, of which 3 were RCTs and 18 were cohort studies. Meta-analysis revealed that PK-guided vancomycin dosing significantly increased the attainment of target trough concentration (RR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.49-1.70) and decreased the incidence of nephrotoxicity (RR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.46-0.71). Additionally, the available evidence showed that target area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration attainment rate and time to target concentration could improve. However, the evidence on clinical outcomes was scarce, and no significant differences were detected in clinical response rate, microbiological eradication rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay between PK-guided vancomycin dosing and empirical dosing strategies. Conclusion and Relevance: Individualized vancomycin dosing via PK tools significantly increases the attainment of target trough concentration and decreases the incidence of nephrotoxicity. Evidence on clinical effectiveness was limited and showed no significant benefit. Further well-designed studies are warranted to assess its clinical effectiveness and inform routine care.
Background: Various pharmacokinetic (PK) equations and software have been developed to individualize vancomycin dosing. However, the benefit of using any PK information to guide vancomycin dosing has not been fully elucidated. Objective: To appraise available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of individualized vancomycin dosing via PK tools. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and 2 Chinese literature databases were searched through August 1, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that reported the PK and clinical outcomes of individualized vancomycin dosing versus empirical dosing were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 21 studies involving 4346 patients were finally included, of which 3 were RCTs and 18 were cohort studies. Meta-analysis revealed that PK-guided vancomycin dosing significantly increased the attainment of target trough concentration (RR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.49-1.70) and decreased the incidence of nephrotoxicity (RR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.46-0.71). Additionally, the available evidence showed that target area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration attainment rate and time to target concentration could improve. However, the evidence on clinical outcomes was scarce, and no significant differences were detected in clinical response rate, microbiological eradication rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay between PK-guided vancomycin dosing and empirical dosing strategies. Conclusion and Relevance: Individualized vancomycin dosing via PK tools significantly increases the attainment of target trough concentration and decreases the incidence of nephrotoxicity. Evidence on clinical effectiveness was limited and showed no significant benefit. Further well-designed studies are warranted to assess its clinical effectiveness and inform routine care.