Comparison of two empirical prolonged infusion dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock: A two-center pilot study.


Journal

International journal of antimicrobial agents
ISSN: 1872-7913
Titre abrégé: Int J Antimicrob Agents
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9111860

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 19 10 2020
revised: 13 01 2021
accepted: 20 01 2021
pubmed: 31 1 2021
medline: 14 9 2021
entrez: 30 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. This study aimed to compare the attainment of pharmacologic targets for two common empirical dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock. 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 Both regimens led to a sufficiently high %fT 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the attainment of pharmacologic targets for two common empirical dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock.
METHODS 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
RESULTS RESULTS
Both regimens led to a sufficiently high %fT
CONCLUSIONS 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33515688
pii: S0924-8579(21)00019-4
doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106289
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-Bacterial Agents 0
Meropenem FV9J3JU8B1

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

106289

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Albrecht Eisert (A)

Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital Aachen RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany; Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Christian Lanckohr (C)

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.

Janina Frey (J)

Department of Intensive and Intermediate Care, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Otto Frey (O)

Department of Pharmacy, General Hospital of Heidenheim, Heidenheim, Germany.

Sebastian G Wicha (SG)

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Dagmar Horn (D)

Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Bjoern Ellger (B)

Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Klinikum Westfalen, Dortmund, Germany.

Tobias Schuerholz (T)

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Gernot Marx (G)

Department of Intensive and Intermediate Care, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Tim-Philipp Simon (TP)

Department of Intensive and Intermediate Care, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. Electronic address: tsimon@ukaachen.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH