Hiie Soeorg1, Aveli Noortoots2, Maarja Karu3, Kadri Saks3, Jana Lass4, Irja Lutsar2, Lenne-Triin Kõrgvee5,6. 1. Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, 50411, Tartu, Estonia. hiie.soeorg@ut.ee. 2. Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Ravila 19, 50411, Tartu, Estonia. 3. Department of Haematology and Oncology, Clinic of Paediatrics, Tallinn Children's Hospital, Tallinn, Estonia. 4. Pharmacy Department, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia. 5. Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 6. Haematology and Oncology Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations reflect kidney function imprecisely. We aimed to describe whether iohexol-based GFR or eGFRs predict clearance of cefepime, piperacillin, and tazobactam in pharmacokinetic (PK) models in this population and its clinical significance. METHODS: Hospitalized patients (0.5-25 years) with haemato-oncological disease and infection receiving cefepime or piperacillin/tazobactam were included. PK samples were collected at a steady state concomitantly with samples for iohexol-based GFR. PK models were developed in NONMEM. Weight, postmenstrual age, iohexol-based GFR, different eGFR equations (Schwartz updated, Lund-Malmö revised, CKD-EPI, Bouvet, Schwartz cystatin C-based) were tested as covariates. Probabilities of neurotoxic/therapeutic concentrations were assessed by simulations. RESULTS: Fifteen patients receiving cefepime and 17 piperacillin/tazobactam were included (median (range) age 16.2 (1.9-26.0) and 10.5 (0.8-25.6) years, iohexol-based GFR 102 (68-140) and 116 (74-137) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). Two-compartment model provided the best fit for all drugs. Weight was covariate for central and peripheral compartment, clearance and intercompartmental clearance (only tazobactam), and postmenstrual age for clearance (excluding cefepime). Iohexol-based GFR was the best predictor of clearance. The model of cefepime without vs with iohexol-based GFR underestimated the probability of neurotoxic concentrations (28.3-28.6% vs 52.1-69.3%) and overestimated the probability of therapeutic concentrations (> 90% vs 81.9-87.1%) in the case of iohexol-based GFR 70-80 and 130-140 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Iohexol-based GFR can predict better than eGFRs the clearance of cefepime, piperacillin, and tazobactam in children and young adults with haemato-oncological disease and infection, warranting further investigation as an indicator of renal function to improve targeting of therapeutic window. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2015-000,631-32, EudraCT 2016-003,374-40 (24.10.2016).
PURPOSE: Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations reflect kidney function imprecisely. We aimed to describe whether iohexol-based GFR or eGFRs predict clearance of cefepime, piperacillin, and tazobactam in pharmacokinetic (PK) models in this population and its clinical significance. METHODS: Hospitalized patients (0.5-25 years) with haemato-oncological disease and infection receiving cefepime or piperacillin/tazobactam were included. PK samples were collected at a steady state concomitantly with samples for iohexol-based GFR. PK models were developed in NONMEM. Weight, postmenstrual age, iohexol-based GFR, different eGFR equations (Schwartz updated, Lund-Malmö revised, CKD-EPI, Bouvet, Schwartz cystatin C-based) were tested as covariates. Probabilities of neurotoxic/therapeutic concentrations were assessed by simulations. RESULTS: Fifteen patients receiving cefepime and 17 piperacillin/tazobactam were included (median (range) age 16.2 (1.9-26.0) and 10.5 (0.8-25.6) years, iohexol-based GFR 102 (68-140) and 116 (74-137) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). Two-compartment model provided the best fit for all drugs. Weight was covariate for central and peripheral compartment, clearance and intercompartmental clearance (only tazobactam), and postmenstrual age for clearance (excluding cefepime). Iohexol-based GFR was the best predictor of clearance. The model of cefepime without vs with iohexol-based GFR underestimated the probability of neurotoxic concentrations (28.3-28.6% vs 52.1-69.3%) and overestimated the probability of therapeutic concentrations (> 90% vs 81.9-87.1%) in the case of iohexol-based GFR 70-80 and 130-140 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Iohexol-based GFR can predict better than eGFRs the clearance of cefepime, piperacillin, and tazobactam in children and young adults with haemato-oncological disease and infection, warranting further investigation as an indicator of renal function to improve targeting of therapeutic window. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2015-000,631-32, EudraCT 2016-003,374-40 (24.10.2016).
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: Hester N Blufpand; Jorien Tromp; Floor C H Abbink; Birgit Stoffel-Wagner; Anneke A Bouman; Antoinette Y N Schouten-van Meeteren; Joanna A E van Wijk; Gertjan J L Kaspers; Arend Bökenkamp Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Sean N Avedissian; Erin Bradley; Diana Zhang; John S Bradley; Lama H Nazer; Tri M Tran; Austin Nguyen; Jennifer Le Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Barbara O M Claus; Eric A Hoste; Kirsten Colpaert; Hugo Robays; Johan Decruyenaere; Jan J De Waele Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Kensuke Shoji; John S Bradley; Michael D Reed; John N van den Anker; Christine Domonoske; Edmund V Capparelli Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 5.191