Impact of Key Components of Intensified Ceftaroline Dosing on Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment.
Journal
Clinical pharmacokinetics
ISSN: 1179-1926
Titre abrégé: Clin Pharmacokinet
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7606849
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Nov 2023
26 Nov 2023
Historique:
accepted:
30
10
2023
medline:
26
11
2023
pubmed:
26
11
2023
entrez:
26
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam antibiotic approved as a 600 mg twice daily dose (≤1 h infusion, 'standard dosing') or a 600 mg thrice daily dose (2 h infusion) to treat complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] 2-4 mg/L). We sought to systematically evaluate the relative impact of the three key components of the intensified dosing regimen (i.e. shortened dosing interval, prolonged infusion duration and increased total daily dose [TDD]) on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment given different grades of bacterial susceptibility. A population PK model was developed using data from 12 healthy volunteers (EudraCT-2012-005134-11) receiving standard or intensified dosing. PK/PD target attainment (ƒT A two-compartment model with linear elimination adequately described ceftaroline concentrations (n = 274). The relevance of the dosing components dosing interval/infusion duration/TDD for ƒT The analysis calls to mind consideration of dose increases when prolonging the infusion duration in the case of low bacterial susceptibility.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam antibiotic approved as a 600 mg twice daily dose (≤1 h infusion, 'standard dosing') or a 600 mg thrice daily dose (2 h infusion) to treat complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] 2-4 mg/L). We sought to systematically evaluate the relative impact of the three key components of the intensified dosing regimen (i.e. shortened dosing interval, prolonged infusion duration and increased total daily dose [TDD]) on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment given different grades of bacterial susceptibility.
METHODS
METHODS
A population PK model was developed using data from 12 healthy volunteers (EudraCT-2012-005134-11) receiving standard or intensified dosing. PK/PD target attainment (ƒT
RESULTS
RESULTS
A two-compartment model with linear elimination adequately described ceftaroline concentrations (n = 274). The relevance of the dosing components dosing interval/infusion duration/TDD for ƒT
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis calls to mind consideration of dose increases when prolonging the infusion duration in the case of low bacterial susceptibility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38007714
doi: 10.1007/s40262-023-01325-4
pii: 10.1007/s40262-023-01325-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Laudano JB. Ceftaroline fosamil: a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:iii11–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkr095 .
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkr095
pubmed: 21482565
AstraZeneca. 2019. Zinforo (powder for concentrate for solution for infusion): summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/zinforo-epar-product-information_en.pdf . Accessed 8 Oct 2023.
Allergan Inc. 2019. Teflaro® (ceftaroline fosamil) for injection, for intravenous use: prescribing information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/200327s022lbl.pdf . Accessed 8 Oct 2023.
Casapao AM, Davis SL, Barr VO, et al. Large retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:2541–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02371-13 .
doi: 10.1128/AAC.02371-13
pubmed: 24550331
pmcid: 3993242
Dryden M, Zhang Y, Wilson D, et al. A Phase III, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection with systemic inflammatory response or underlying comorbidities. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:3575–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw333 .
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw333
pubmed: 27585969
pmcid: 5181396
Matzneller P, Lackner E, Lagler H, et al. Single- and repeated-dose pharmacokinetics of ceftaroline in plasma and soft tissues of healthy volunteers for two different dosing regimens of ceftaroline fosamil. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:3617–25. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00097-16 .
doi: 10.1128/AAC.00097-16
pubmed: 27044549
pmcid: 4879389
Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ, Bauer RJ (eds). 1989-2018. NONMEM 7.4 user guides.
Keizer RJ, Karlsson MO, Hooker A. Modeling and simulation workbench for NONMEM: Tutorial on Pirana, PsN, and Xpose. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2013;2: e50. https://doi.org/10.1038/psp.2013.24 .
doi: 10.1038/psp.2013.24
pubmed: 23836189
pmcid: 3697037
U.S. Food and drug administration, Center for drug evaluation and research. 2010. Ceftaroline fosamil for injection: clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics review(s). 1–225. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2010/200327Orig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf . Accessed 8 Oct 2023.
Van Wart SA, Forrest A, Khariton T, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of ceftaroline in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53:1155–67. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01680-13 .
doi: 10.1128/AAC.01680-13
pubmed: 23907740
Justo JA, Mayer SM, Pai MP, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ceftaroline in normal body weight and obese (classes I, II, and III) healthy adult subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:3956–65. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00498-15 .
doi: 10.1128/AAC.00498-15
pubmed: 25896707
pmcid: 4468711
Kiang TKL, Wilby KJ, Ensom MHH. A critical review on the clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical trials of ceftaroline. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54:915–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-015-0281-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40262-015-0281-3
pubmed: 25940827
European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 2014. Ceftaroline: Rationale for the clinical breakpoints, version 1.0. http://www.eucast.org . Accessed 8 Oct 2023.
The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 13.0, 2023. http://www.eucast.org . Accessed 8 Oct 2023.
Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, et al. Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: Report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998–2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;57:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.05.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.05.009
pubmed: 17059876
Dryden MS. Complicated skin and soft tissue infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq302 .
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkq302
Das S, Li J, Iaconis J, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil doses and breakpoints for Staphylococcus aureus in complicated skin and soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74:425–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky439 .
doi: 10.1093/jac/dky439
pubmed: 30380060
Singh R, Almutairi M, Alm RA, et al. Ceftaroline efficacy against high-MIC clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates in an in vitro hollow-fibre infection model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72:2796–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx214 .
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx214
pubmed: 29091195
MacGowan AP, Noel AR, Tomaselli S, Bowker KE. Pharmacodynamics of Ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus Studied in an In Vitro Pharmacokinetic Model of Infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:2451–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01386-12 .
doi: 10.1128/AAC.01386-12
pubmed: 23459495
pmcid: 3716170
Andes D, Craig WA. Pharmacodynamics of a New Cephalosporin, PPI-0903 (TAK-599), Active against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Murine Thigh and Lung Infection Models: Identification of an In Vivo Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Target. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:1376–83. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.50.4.1376-1383.2006 .
doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.4.1376-1383.2006
pubmed: 16569855
pmcid: 1426945
Grupper M, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Continuous and prolonged intravenous β-lactam dosing: Implications for the clinical laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29:750–72. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00022-16 .
doi: 10.1128/CMR.00022-16
Ehmann L, Zoller M, Minichmayr IK, et al. Development of a dosing algorithm for meropenem in critically ill patients based on a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;54:309–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.06.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.06.016
pubmed: 31229669
Flamm RK, Sader HS, Jones RN. Ceftaroline activity tested against contemporary Latin American bacterial pathogens (2011). Braz J Infect Dis. 2014;18:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2013.11.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2013.11.005
pubmed: 24513484
pmcid: 9427512
Biedenbach DJ, Alm RA, Lahiri SD, et al. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus isolated in 2012 from Asia-Pacific countries as part of the AWARE surveillance program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:343–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/JAC/DKW315 .
doi: 10.1093/JAC/DKW315
pubmed: 26503659
Urbán E, Stone GG. Impact of EUCAST ceftaroline breakpoint change on the susceptibility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected from patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25:1429.e1-1429.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.023
pubmed: 30980925
Abdul-Aziz MH, Alffenaar JWC, Bassetti M, et al. Antimicrobial therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill adult patients: a position paper. Int Care Med. 2020;46:1127–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06050-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06050-1
Barsky EE, Pereira LM, Sullivan KJ, et al. Ceftaroline pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2018;17:e25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2017.10.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2017.10.010
pubmed: 29103924
Riccobene TA, Khariton T, Knebel W, et al. Population PK modeling and target attainment simulations to support dosing of ceftaroline fosamil in pediatric patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;57:345–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.809 .
doi: 10.1002/jcph.809
pubmed: 27510635
Li J, Das S, Zhou D, et al. Population pharmacokinetic modeling and probability of target attainment analyses in Asian patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with ceftaroline fosamil. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2019;8:682–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.673 .
doi: 10.1002/cpdd.673
pubmed: 31044546
Helfer VE, Zavascki AP, Zeitlinger M, et al. Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Probability of Target Attainment of Ceftaroline in Brain and Soft Tissues. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022;20(66): e0074122. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00741-22 .
doi: 10.1128/aac.00741-22
Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14:498–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70036-2 .
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70036-2
pubmed: 24768475
pmcid: 4181663
Wicha SG, Märtson AG, Nielsen EI, et al. From therapeutic drug monitoring to model-informed precision dosing for antibiotics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109:928–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2202 .
doi: 10.1002/cpt.2202
pubmed: 33565627
Broeker A, Wicha SG. Assessing parameter uncertainty in small-n pharmacometric analyses: value of the log-likelihood profiling-based sampling importance resampling (LLP-SIR) technique. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2020;47:219–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-020-09682-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s10928-020-09682-4
pubmed: 32248328
pmcid: 7289778