Aminoglycosides in the Intensive Care Unit: What Is New in Population PK Modeling?

aminoglycosides critically ill intensive care unit population pharmacokinetic modeling

Journal

Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2079-6382
Titre abrégé: Antibiotics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101637404

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Apr 2021
Historique:
received: 14 04 2021
revised: 24 04 2021
accepted: 26 04 2021
entrez: 5 5 2021
pubmed: 6 5 2021
medline: 6 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Although aminoglycosides are often used as treatment for Gram-negative infections, optimal dosing regimens remain unclear, especially in ICU patients. This is due to a large between- and within-subject variability in the aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in this population. This review provides comprehensive data on the pharmacokinetics of aminoglycosides in patients hospitalized in the ICU by summarizing all published PopPK models in ICU patients for amikacin, gentamicin, and tobramycin. The objective was to determine the presence of a consensus on the structural model used, significant covariates included, and therapeutic targets considered during dosing regimen simulations. A literature search was conducted in the Medline/PubMed database, using the terms: 'amikacin', 'gentamicin', 'tobramycin', 'pharmacokinetic(s)', 'nonlinear mixed effect', 'population', 'intensive care', and 'critically ill'. Nineteen articles were retained where amikacin, gentamicin, and tobramycin pharmacokinetics were described in six, 11, and five models, respectively. A two-compartment model was used to describe amikacin and tobramycin pharmacokinetics, whereas a one-compartment model majorly described gentamicin pharmacokinetics. The most recurrent significant covariates were renal clearance and bodyweight. Across all aminoglycosides, mean interindividual variability in clearance and volume of distribution were 41.6% and 22.0%, respectively. A common consensus for an optimal dosing regimen for each aminoglycoside was not reached. This review showed models developed for amikacin, from 2015 until now, and for gentamicin and tobramycin from the past decades. Despite the growing challenges of external evaluation, the latter should be more considered during model development. Further research including new covariates, additional simulated dosing regimens, and external validation should be considered to better understand aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in ICU patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Although aminoglycosides are often used as treatment for Gram-negative infections, optimal dosing regimens remain unclear, especially in ICU patients. This is due to a large between- and within-subject variability in the aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in this population.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This review provides comprehensive data on the pharmacokinetics of aminoglycosides in patients hospitalized in the ICU by summarizing all published PopPK models in ICU patients for amikacin, gentamicin, and tobramycin. The objective was to determine the presence of a consensus on the structural model used, significant covariates included, and therapeutic targets considered during dosing regimen simulations.
METHOD METHODS
A literature search was conducted in the Medline/PubMed database, using the terms: 'amikacin', 'gentamicin', 'tobramycin', 'pharmacokinetic(s)', 'nonlinear mixed effect', 'population', 'intensive care', and 'critically ill'.
RESULTS RESULTS
Nineteen articles were retained where amikacin, gentamicin, and tobramycin pharmacokinetics were described in six, 11, and five models, respectively. A two-compartment model was used to describe amikacin and tobramycin pharmacokinetics, whereas a one-compartment model majorly described gentamicin pharmacokinetics. The most recurrent significant covariates were renal clearance and bodyweight. Across all aminoglycosides, mean interindividual variability in clearance and volume of distribution were 41.6% and 22.0%, respectively. A common consensus for an optimal dosing regimen for each aminoglycoside was not reached.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This review showed models developed for amikacin, from 2015 until now, and for gentamicin and tobramycin from the past decades. Despite the growing challenges of external evaluation, the latter should be more considered during model development. Further research including new covariates, additional simulated dosing regimens, and external validation should be considered to better understand aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in ICU patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33946905
pii: antibiotics10050507
doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10050507
pmc: PMC8145041
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
ID : 283368
Organisme : Réseau Québécois de Recherche sur les Médicaments
ID : 2019-Axe biopharmacie et pharmacométrie

Références

J Intensive Care. 2014 May 07;2(1):31
pubmed: 25520843
J Crit Care. 2012 Dec;27(6):745.e7-12
pubmed: 22341728
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 May;2(3):431-9
pubmed: 17699448
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010 Sep;38(5):930-4
pubmed: 20865881
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016 Jun 01;6(6):
pubmed: 27252397
J Clin Pharmacol. 1987 Mar;27(3):216-20
pubmed: 3680577
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019 Mar 27;63(4):
pubmed: 30917981
Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jul-Aug;46(7-8):952-9
pubmed: 22693271
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011 Sep;55(9):4006-11
pubmed: 21670189
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2017 Feb;56(2):127-138
pubmed: 27324191
Clin Ther. 2016 Sep;38(9):2032-44
pubmed: 27524636
Ann Pharmacother. 1992 Oct;26(10):1205-10
pubmed: 1421639
J Clin Pharmacol. 2006 Nov;46(11):1259-67
pubmed: 17050791
Crit Care Med. 2007 May;35(5):1244-50
pubmed: 17414736
Clin Pharmacokinet. 1999 Oct;37(4):331-41
pubmed: 10554048
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Jul 22;60(8):4901-9
pubmed: 27270279
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1982 May;30(5):309-11
pubmed: 7077006
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019 Oct 22;63(11):
pubmed: 31481443
Clin Pharmacokinet. 1992 Jul;23(1):62-8
pubmed: 1617859
Ther Drug Monit. 2017 Oct;39(5):522-530
pubmed: 28682925
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Feb 15;18(4):1101-8
pubmed: 22223530
Crit Care Med. 2006 Aug;34(8):2153-7
pubmed: 16763505
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Ann Intensive Care. 2015 Dec;5(1):49
pubmed: 26667819
Drug Metab Rev. 2009;41(3):475-85
pubmed: 19601723
Crit Care. 2013 Jun 15;17(3):R108
pubmed: 23767877
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989 Sep;28(3):305-14
pubmed: 2789924
Crit Care Clin. 2011 Jan;27(1):107-21
pubmed: 21144989
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015 Jul;54(7):783-95
pubmed: 25637173
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Sep 15;45(6):753-60
pubmed: 17712761
J Clin Med Res. 2014 Aug;6(4):227-33
pubmed: 24883145
Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2017 Apr;102(2):89-93
pubmed: 27506599
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Feb;49(2):204-211
pubmed: 28038961
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Dec;71(12):3482-3486
pubmed: 27516474
Ann Pharmacother. 1993 Feb;27(2):151-4
pubmed: 8439687
PLoS One. 2017 May 5;12(5):e0177324
pubmed: 28475651
Ther Drug Monit. 2008 Dec;30(6):674-81
pubmed: 19057371
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Jan;19(1):147-52
pubmed: 7247354
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Apr;34(4):614-21
pubmed: 2111658
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Aug 1;74(8):2311-2317
pubmed: 31322695
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Jan;71(1):61-71
pubmed: 21143502
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Sep;76(9):1281-1289
pubmed: 32495084
J Otol. 2017 Mar;12(1):1-8
pubmed: 29937831
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019 Apr 25;63(5):
pubmed: 30833424
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Sep;54(9):3635-40
pubmed: 20547809
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Aug;52(2):218-225
pubmed: 29704547
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999 Apr;43(4):727-37
pubmed: 10103173
Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Feb;86(2):156-67
pubmed: 21282489
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jan;57(1):6-14
pubmed: 14678335
Pharmacol Res. 2018 Aug;134:280-288
pubmed: 30033398
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997 May;41(5):1115-9
pubmed: 9145878
Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;34(6):1589-96
pubmed: 16625125
J Infect Dis. 1976 Nov;134 SUPPL:S316-22
pubmed: 825589
Intensive Care Med. 2002 Jul;28(7):936-42
pubmed: 12122533
Clin Pharmacokinet. 1984 Sep-Oct;9(5):457-68
pubmed: 6499344
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019 Oct;58(10):1323-1332
pubmed: 30972695
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018 Sep;57(9):1107-1121
pubmed: 29441476
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Apr 21;64(5):
pubmed: 32041715
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013 Apr;52(4):289-301
pubmed: 23420517
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Mar 24;64(4):
pubmed: 31964795
Ann Clin Biochem. 2013 Nov;50(Pt 6):546-57
pubmed: 24045301
Pharmacotherapy. 2018 Dec;38(12):1229-1238
pubmed: 30403305
J Trauma. 2000 Nov;49(5):869-72
pubmed: 11086778
Intern Med J. 2015 Mar;45(3):319-29
pubmed: 25581282
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2010 Feb;37(1):49-65
pubmed: 20033477

Auteurs

Alexandre Duong (A)

Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
Laboratoire de Suivi Thérapeutique Pharmacologique et Pharmacocinétique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.

Chantale Simard (C)

Faculté de Pharmacie, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Centre de Recherche, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et Pneumologie de Québec, Québec, QC G1V 4G5, Canada.

Yi Le Wang (YL)

Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
Laboratoire de Suivi Thérapeutique Pharmacologique et Pharmacocinétique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.

David Williamson (D)

Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
Hôpital Sacré-Cœur de Montréal, Montréal, QC H4J 1C5, Canada.

Amélie Marsot (A)

Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
Laboratoire de Suivi Thérapeutique Pharmacologique et Pharmacocinétique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada.
Centre de Recherche, CHU Sainte Justine, Montréal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada.

Classifications MeSH