International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2021
Comparison of two empirical prolonged infusion dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock: A two-center pilot study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eisert Albrecht, Lanckohr Christian, Frey Janina, Frey Otto, Wicha Sebastian G, Horn Dagmar, Ellger Bjoern, Schuerholz Tobias, Marx Gernot, Simon Tim-Philipp
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Due to high pharmacokinetic variability, standard doses of meropenem are frequently inadequate in septic patients. Therapeutic drug monitoring of meropenem is not widely available; therefore, improved empiric dosing recommendations are needed.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the attainment of pharmacologic targets for two common empirical dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock.
METHODS: Two empiric dosing schemes for meropenem were compared using extended infusions (120 minutes) in 32 patients with septic shock in the intensive care units at two different hospitals. One regimen was 3 × 2 g meropenem/24 h for two days, followed by 3 × 1 g meropenem/24 h; the other regimen was 4 × 1 g meropenem/24 h. Serum meropenem concentrations were measured for the first 72 h of therapy, and pharmacokinetic modelling was performed to define the percentage of time the free drug concentration was above various target MICs for each regimen (%fT>MIC).
RESULTS: Both regimens led to a sufficiently high %fT>MIC for pathogens with target MICs < 4 mg/L. When higher MICs were targeted, the %fT>MIC of 4 × 1 g meropenem decreased faster than that of 3 × 2 g meropenem. At high MICs of 32 mg/L, both dosing regimens failed to provide appropriate drug concentrations. Renal function was a significant covariate of target attainment.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study can guide clinicians in their choice of an empirical dosing regimen for meropenem. If pathogens with low MICs (< 4 mg/L) are targeted, both dosing regimens are adequate, whereas more resistant strains require higher doses.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the attainment of pharmacologic targets for two common empirical dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock.
METHODS: Two empiric dosing schemes for meropenem were compared using extended infusions (120 minutes) in 32 patients with septic shock in the intensive care units at two different hospitals. One regimen was 3 × 2 g meropenem/24 h for two days, followed by 3 × 1 g meropenem/24 h; the other regimen was 4 × 1 g meropenem/24 h. Serum meropenem concentrations were measured for the first 72 h of therapy, and pharmacokinetic modelling was performed to define the percentage of time the free drug concentration was above various target MICs for each regimen (%fT>MIC).
RESULTS: Both regimens led to a sufficiently high %fT>MIC for pathogens with target MICs < 4 mg/L. When higher MICs were targeted, the %fT>MIC of 4 × 1 g meropenem decreased faster than that of 3 × 2 g meropenem. At high MICs of 32 mg/L, both dosing regimens failed to provide appropriate drug concentrations. Renal function was a significant covariate of target attainment.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study can guide clinicians in their choice of an empirical dosing regimen for meropenem. If pathogens with low MICs (< 4 mg/L) are targeted, both dosing regimens are adequate, whereas more resistant strains require higher doses.