Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026
Protein Binding Determination of Cefepime, Flucloxacillin, Meropenem, Piperacillin and Tazobactam by Ultrafiltration in Critically Ill Patients: The Choice of Device Matters.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Gregoire Matthieu, Wallis Steven C, Williams Paul G, Won Hayoung, Hernández-Mitre María Patricia, Abdul-Aziz Mohd H, Roberts Jason A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and pharmacokinetic studies of beta-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients aim to define optimal dosing and require accurate measurement of unbound drug concentrations. This study compared the performance of two ultrafiltration devices, Centrifree and Amicon, for measuring unbound concentrations of cefepime, meropenem, flucloxacillin, piperacillin and tazobactam.
METHODS: Non-specific binding (NSB) was specifically assessed in phosphate-buffered saline, and unbound concentrations were measured using a chromatographic method in both spiked plasma and plasma samples from critically ill patients, in order to compare the two ultrafiltration devices.
RESULTS: Centrifree exhibited no significant NSB for any antibiotics (≤ 15%), while Amicon displayed significant NSB for meropenem (26-61%), flucloxacillin (18-58%) and piperacillin (15-72%), resulting in lower unbound concentrations in both patient and spiked plasma samples compared to Centrifree. Additionally, piperacillin, and to a lesser extent flucloxacillin, demonstrated concentration-dependent NSB with Amicon. The comparative mean ± standard deviation of unbound fractions in intensive care unit (ICU) patients were as follows: cefepime, 0.85 ± 0.12 (Centrifree) versus 0.90 ± 0.10 (Amicon); meropenem, 0.87 ± 0.07 (Centrifree) versus 0.77 ± 0.05 (Amicon); flucloxacillin, 0.25 ± 0.13 (Centrifree) versus 0.18 ± 0.13 (Amicon); piperacillin, 0.91 ± 0.07 (Centrifree) versus 0.67 ± 0.13 (Amicon); and tazobactam, 0.97 ± 0.08 (Centrifree) versus 0.95 ± 0.08 (Amicon).
CONCLUSION: These findings underscore significant differences in results between ultrafiltration devices, depending on the drug, influenced by NSB. Such factors should be considered when developing methods for determining unbound concentrations of beta-lactam antibiotics.
METHODS: Non-specific binding (NSB) was specifically assessed in phosphate-buffered saline, and unbound concentrations were measured using a chromatographic method in both spiked plasma and plasma samples from critically ill patients, in order to compare the two ultrafiltration devices.
RESULTS: Centrifree exhibited no significant NSB for any antibiotics (≤ 15%), while Amicon displayed significant NSB for meropenem (26-61%), flucloxacillin (18-58%) and piperacillin (15-72%), resulting in lower unbound concentrations in both patient and spiked plasma samples compared to Centrifree. Additionally, piperacillin, and to a lesser extent flucloxacillin, demonstrated concentration-dependent NSB with Amicon. The comparative mean ± standard deviation of unbound fractions in intensive care unit (ICU) patients were as follows: cefepime, 0.85 ± 0.12 (Centrifree) versus 0.90 ± 0.10 (Amicon); meropenem, 0.87 ± 0.07 (Centrifree) versus 0.77 ± 0.05 (Amicon); flucloxacillin, 0.25 ± 0.13 (Centrifree) versus 0.18 ± 0.13 (Amicon); piperacillin, 0.91 ± 0.07 (Centrifree) versus 0.67 ± 0.13 (Amicon); and tazobactam, 0.97 ± 0.08 (Centrifree) versus 0.95 ± 0.08 (Amicon).
CONCLUSION: These findings underscore significant differences in results between ultrafiltration devices, depending on the drug, influenced by NSB. Such factors should be considered when developing methods for determining unbound concentrations of beta-lactam antibiotics.