| Literature DB >> 35631551 |
Dzenefa Alihodzic1,2, Sebastian G Wicha2, Otto R Frey3, Christina König1,4, Michael Baehr1, Dominik Jarczak4, Stefan Kluge4, Claudia Langebrake1,5.
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is utilized to temporarily sustain respiratory and/or cardiac function in critically ill patients. Ciprofloxacin is used to treat nosocomial infections, but data describing the effect of ECMO on its pharmacokinetics is lacking. Therefore, a prospective, observational trial including critically ill adults (n = 17), treated with ciprofloxacin (400 mg 8-12 hourly) during ECMO, was performed. Serial blood samples were collected to determine ciprofloxacin concentrations to assess their pharmacokinetics. The pharmacometric modeling was performed (NONMEM®) and utilized for simulations to evaluate the probability of target attainment (PTA) to achieve an AUC0-24/MIC of 125 mg·h/L for ciprofloxacin. A two-compartment model most adequately described the concentration-time data of ciprofloxacin. Significant covariates on ciprofloxacin clearance (CL) were plasma bicarbonate and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). For pathogens with an MIC of ≤0.25 mg/L, a PTA of ≥90% was attained. However, for pathogens with an MIC of ≥0.5 mg/L, plasma bicarbonate ≥ 22 mmol/L or eGFR ≥ 10 mL/min PTA decreased below 90%, steadily declining to 7.3% (plasma bicarbonate 39 mmol/L) and 21.4% (eGFR 150 mL/min), respectively. To reach PTAs of ≥90% for pathogens with MICs ≥ 0.5 mg/L, optimized dosing regimens may be required.Entities:
Keywords: ARDS; ECMO; NONMEM; ciprofloxacin; critically ill; population pharmacokinetics; therapeutic drug monitoring
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631551 PMCID: PMC9145815 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14050965
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.525
The demographic and clinical data.
| Variable | Median (IQR) | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 57 (51–63) | 25–73 |
| Weight (kg) | 90 (80–103) | 66–123 |
| Height (m) | 1.8 (1.75–1.82) | 1.60–1.97 |
| BMI (kg/m²) | 29.3 (26.1–30.9) | 20.4–36.7 |
|
| ||
| SOFA score | 13 (10–14) | 3.0–19 |
| SAPS II score | 48 (38–52) | 15–73 |
| APACHE II score | 32 (21–33) | 14–46 |
|
| ||
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.3 (0.88–2.0) | 0.25–4.10 |
| GFR (CKD-EPI) (ml/min) | 46.8 (25.4–79.6) | 10.7–143 |
| Serum albumin concentration (g/L) | 21.3 (16.2–24.9) | 10.4–31.0 |
| Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 1.0 (0.7–2.0) | 0.2–24.4 |
| AST level (U/L) | 56 (39.5–134) | 21–1568 |
| ALT level (U/L) | 56 (32–118.5) | 11–543 |
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | 128 (73.5–202.3) | 8–475 |
| Bicarbonate (mmol/L) | 26.6 (24.3–29.7) | 18.0–39.0 |
| pH value | 7.43 (7.39–7.46) | 7.25–7.58 |
|
| ||
| Length of ECMO therapy (days) | 13 (9–16) | (4–28) |
| Blood flow (L/min) | 4.4 (3.9–5.2) | 2.2–6.73 |
| Gas flow (L/min) | 4.25 (3.5–5.1) | 0.9–10 |
| Revolutions per minutes (RPM) | 3460 (3185–3804) | 2270–5000 |
| PaO2/FiO2 | 102.5 (71.1–143.3) | 26.8–463 |
|
| ||
| Peak | 4.55 (3.69–5.9) | 2.38–12.14 |
| Mid-dose | 2.57 (1.97–3.45) | 1.06–9.3 |
| Through | 1.53 (1.11–2.57) | 0.77–6.88 |
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| Male | 16 (94) | NA |
| Female | 1 (6) | NA |
|
| ||
| ARDS | 6 (35) | NA |
| Global respiratory insufficiency | 1 (6) | NA |
| Pulmonary fibrosis | 1 (6) | NA |
| Cardiac decompensation | 1 (6) | NA |
| Bridge to transplant | 1 (6) | NA |
| Cardiogenic shock (STEMI/NSTEMI) | 7 (41) | NA |
|
| ||
| Veno-arterial (VA) | 8 (47) | NA |
| Veno-venous (VV) | 8 (47) | NA |
| Veno-veno-arterial (VVA) | 1 (6) | NA |
|
| ||
| 8 (47) | NA | |
|
| ||
| Survived | 5 (29) | NA |
| Deceased | 12 (71) | NA |
Abbreviations: BMI—body mass index, SOFA—Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, SAPS II—Simplified Acute Physiology Score, APACHE II—Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Score, GFR (CKD-EPI)—glomerular filtration rate calculated using the equation of Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, AST—aspartate aminotransferase, ALT—alanine aminotransferase. NA—not applicable, ARDS—Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, STEMI—ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction, and NSTEMI—Non-ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
The population pharmacokinetic parameter estimates from the base and final model of ciprofloxacin, as well as the LLP-SIR results.
| Base Model | Final Model | LLP-SIR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Shrinkage | Estimate | Shrinkage | 95% CI | |
| (% RSE) | (%) | (% RSE) | (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| CL (L/h) | 13.6 (12) | - | 12.9 (7.6) | - | 11.2–14.7 |
| V1 (L) | 73.2 (16) | - | 73.4 (15) | - | 53.3–95.5 |
| Q (L/h) | 39.4 (33) | - | 38.8 (30) | - | 25.7–57.7 |
| V2 (L) | 88.3 (17) | - | 87.6 (16) | - | 66.1–115.1 |
| COV_CL_BICARB (L/mmol) | - | - | 0.0571 (12) | - | 0.0334–0.0770 |
| COV_CL_eGFR (min/mL) | - | - | 0.0038 (29) | - | 0.0003–0.0074 |
|
| |||||
| IIV CL (CV%) | 46.4 (20) | 0 | 25.8 (19) | 4 | 18.7–36.0 |
| IIV V1 (CV%) | 48.1 (18) | 14 | 53.9 (17) | 12 | 33.1–76.1 |
| IIV Q (CV%) | 38.7 (64) | 47 | 34.1 (76) | 52 | 4.2–69.6 |
| IIV V2 (CV%) | 3.2 FIX | 94 | - | - | - |
| IOV CL (CV%) | 18.5 (17) | - | 17.2 (21) | - | 11.3–23.3 |
|
| |||||
| Prop. σ (CV%) | 12.2 (17.3) | 29 | 12.1 (21.9) | 28 | 10.2–15.2 |
| OFV | 29.054 | - | 2.082 | - | - |
Abbreviations: CL—the clearance, V1—the central volume of distribution, Q—the inter-compartmental clearance, V2—the peripheral volume of distribution, COV_CL_BICARB—the typical pharmacokinetic parameter for the first covariate on the clearance (bicarbonate value), COV_CL_eGFR—the typical pharmacokinetic parameter for the second covariate on the clearance (estimated glomerular filtration rate), IIV—the inter-individual variability, IOV—the inter-occasion variability, Prop. σ2—the residual variability calculated as a proportional error, and CV—the variability estimates were transformed into coefficient of variation (CV) values as follows: %CV = sqrt(exp(OMEGA) − 1) × 100, OFV—the objective function value, RSE—the relative standard error, LLP-SIR—the log-likelihood profiling-based sampling importance resampling, and CI—the confidence interval.
Figure 1The goodness-of-fit (GOF) plots of the final PK model for ciprofloxacin in adult ECMO patients. The observed ciprofloxacin concentration versus (A) the population-predicted concentrations, and (B) the individual-predicted concentrations; dashed line in (A,B): line of identity. The conditional weighted residuals (CWRES) versus population predicted concentration (C), and time after the first dose (D). Blue circles represent individual data points; solid black line in (C,D): conditional weighted residuals are equal to 0; dashed black lines in (C,D) represent 95% confidence interval.
Figure 2The visual predictive check (prediction-corrected) of the final PK model, showing the median, 5th, and 95th percentile of observed data (red lines) and the median, 5th, and 95th percentile of predicted data (black lines). The circles represent the prediction-corrected observed concentrations, and the shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3The impact of (A) the bicarbonate value, (B) the eGFR, and (C) the combination of the highest and lowest value of these two covariates (in the study population) on the PTA. The percentages represent the respective PTA at a breakpoint of 0.5 mg/L (dotted vertical line). A PTA ≥ 90% was considered satisfactory.
Figure 4The impact of three different dosing regimens on the PTA, depending on (A) the lowest bicarbonate, (B) the highest bicarbonate, (C) the lowest eGFR, and (D) the highest eGFR values in the study population and the respective MIC value. The dashed vertical line represents the breakpoint of 0.5 mg/L. A PTA ≥ 90% was considered satisfactory.