Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2023
Dose Individualization of Cefepime for Febrile Neutropenia in Patients With Lymphoma or Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Oda Kazutaka, Yamaguchi Ayami, Matsumoto Naoya, Nakata Hirotomo, Higuchi Yusuke, Nosaka Kisato, Jono Hirofumi, Saito Hideyuki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Optimal cefepime dosing is a challenge because of its dose-dependent neurotoxicity. This study aimed to determine individualized cefepime dosing for febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma.
METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 16 patients receiving cefepime at a dose of 2 g every 12 hours. Unbound concentrations were determined at 0.5 hours, 7.2 hours [at the 60% time point of the 12 hours administration interval (C7.2h)], and 11 hours (trough concentration) after the first infusion (rate: 2 g/h). The primary and secondary end points were the predictive performance of the area under the unbound concentration-time curve (AUC unbound ) and the effect of unbound cefepime pharmacokinetic parameters on clinical response, respectively.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) AUC unbound was 689.7 (226.6) mcg h/mL, which correlated with C7.2h (R 2 = 0.90), and the Bayesian posterior AUC unbound using only the trough concentration (R 2 = 0.66). Although higher exposure was more likely to show a better clinical response, each parameter did not indicate a statistical significance between positive and negative clinical responses ( P = 0.0907 for creatinine clearance (Ccr), 0.2523 for C7.2h, 0.4079 for trough concentration, and 0.1142 for AUC unbound ). Cutoff values were calculated as 80.2 mL/min for Ccr (sensitivity: 0.889, specificity: 0.714), 18.6 mcg/mL for C7.2h (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000), and 9.2 mcg/mL for trough concentration (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000). When aiming for a time above 100% the minimum inhibitory concentration, both continuous infusion of 4 g/d and intermittent infusion of 2 g every 8 hours achieved a probability of approximately 100% at a minimum inhibitory concentration of 8 mcg/mL.
CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring by sampling at C7.2h or trough can facilitate rapid dose optimization. Continuous infusion of 4 g/d was recommended. Intermittent dosing of 2 g every 8 hours was alternatively suggested for patients with a Ccr of 60-90 mL/min.
METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 16 patients receiving cefepime at a dose of 2 g every 12 hours. Unbound concentrations were determined at 0.5 hours, 7.2 hours [at the 60% time point of the 12 hours administration interval (C7.2h)], and 11 hours (trough concentration) after the first infusion (rate: 2 g/h). The primary and secondary end points were the predictive performance of the area under the unbound concentration-time curve (AUC unbound ) and the effect of unbound cefepime pharmacokinetic parameters on clinical response, respectively.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) AUC unbound was 689.7 (226.6) mcg h/mL, which correlated with C7.2h (R 2 = 0.90), and the Bayesian posterior AUC unbound using only the trough concentration (R 2 = 0.66). Although higher exposure was more likely to show a better clinical response, each parameter did not indicate a statistical significance between positive and negative clinical responses ( P = 0.0907 for creatinine clearance (Ccr), 0.2523 for C7.2h, 0.4079 for trough concentration, and 0.1142 for AUC unbound ). Cutoff values were calculated as 80.2 mL/min for Ccr (sensitivity: 0.889, specificity: 0.714), 18.6 mcg/mL for C7.2h (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000), and 9.2 mcg/mL for trough concentration (sensitivity: 0.571, specificity: 1.000). When aiming for a time above 100% the minimum inhibitory concentration, both continuous infusion of 4 g/d and intermittent infusion of 2 g every 8 hours achieved a probability of approximately 100% at a minimum inhibitory concentration of 8 mcg/mL.
CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring by sampling at C7.2h or trough can facilitate rapid dose optimization. Continuous infusion of 4 g/d was recommended. Intermittent dosing of 2 g every 8 hours was alternatively suggested for patients with a Ccr of 60-90 mL/min.