Population pharmacokinetics and Monte Carlo dosing simulations of meropenem during the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock in critically ill patients in intensive care units

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 2995-3001

  Jaruratanasirikul, Sutep ^a   Thengyai, Suriyan ^a   Wongpoowarak, Wibul ^a   Wattanavijitkul, Thitima ^b   Tangkitwanitjaroen, Kanyawisa ^a   Sukarnjanaset, Waroonrat ^b   Jullangkoon, Monchana ^a   Samaeng, Maseetoh ^a  

^a PRINCE OF SONGKLA UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CEFEPIME; MEROPENEM; THIENAMYCIN DERIVATIVE;

ADULT; AGED; ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRITICALLY ILL PATIENT; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG CLEARANCE; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG INFUSION; ELIMINATION HALF-LIFE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMMUNOCOMPROMISED PATIENT; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NORMAL VALUE; PATHOGEN LOAD; PHARMACOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PLASMA CONCENTRATION-TIME CURVE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY OF TARGET ATTAINMENT; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; SEPSIS; SEPTIC SHOCK; VOLUME OF DISTRIBUTION; CRITICAL ILLNESS; METABOLISM; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; SHOCK, SEPTIC;

ADULT; AGED; CRITICAL ILLNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; MALE; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MIDDLE AGED; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SEPSIS; SHOCK, SEPTIC; THIENAMYCINS;

EID: 84929629126     PISSN: 00664804     EISSN: 10986596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.04166-14     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. 2001. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 29:1303-1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002.
2. Kollef MH, Sherman G, Ward S, Fraser VJ. 1999. Inadequate antimicrobial treatment of infections: a risk factor for hospital mortality among critically ill patients. Chest 115:462-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.115.2.462.
3. Niederman MS. 2006. Use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials for the treatment of pneumonia in seriously ill patients: maximizing clinical outcomes and minimizing selection of resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis 42(Suppl 2):S72-S81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499405.
4. Lodise TP, McKinnon PS, Swiderski L, Rybak MJ. 2003. Outcomes analysis of delayed antibiotic treatment for hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 36:1418-1423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/375057.
5. Taccone FS, Laterre PF, Dugernier T, Spapen H, Delattre I, Wittebole X, Backer DD, Layeux B, Wallemacq P, Vincent JL, Jacobs F. 2010. Insufficient β-lactam concentrations in the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care 14:R126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc9091.
6. Udy AA, Varghese JM, Altukroni M, Briscoe S, McWhinney BC, Ungerer JP, Lipman J, Roberts JA. 2012. Subtherapeutic initial β-lactam concentrations in select critically ill patients: association between augmented renal clearance and low trough drug concentrations. Chest 142:30-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-1671.
7. Wiseman LR, Wagstaff AJ, Brogden RN, Bryson HM. 1995. Meropenem: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and clinical efficacy. Drugs 50:73-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199550010-00007.
8. Craig WA. 1995. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 22:89-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(95)00053-D.
9. Vogelman B, Gudmundsson S, Leggett J, Turnidge J, Ebert S, Craig WA. 1988. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. J Infect Dis 158:831-847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/158.4.831.
10. Pinder M, Bellomo R, Lipman J. 2002. Pharmacological principles of antibiotic prescription in the critically ill. Anaesth Intensive Care 30:134-144.
11. Hassan E, Ober JD. 1987. Predicted and measured aminoglycoside pharmacokinetic parameters in critically ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 31:1855-1858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.31.11.1855.
12. th ed. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA.
13. Ozkan Y, Kucukguzel L, Ozkan SA, Aboul-Enein HY. 2001. A rapid, sensitive high performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of meropenem in pharmaceutical dosage form, human serum and urine. Biomed Chromatogr 15:263-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmc.68.
14. Box GEP, Muller ME. 1958. A note on the generation of random normal deviates. Ann Math Statist 29:610-611.
15. Taccone FS, Hites M, Beumier M, Scolletta S, Jacobs F. 2011. Appropriate antibiotic dosage levels in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. Curr Infect Dis Rep 13:406-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11908-011-0203-y.
16. Varghese JM, Roberts JA, Lipman J. 2011. Antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues in the critically ill with severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Clin 27:19-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2010.09.006.
17. Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S. 2003. Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of meropenem in healthy volunteers following administration by intermittent infusion or bolus injection. J Antimicrob Chemother 52:518-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkg378.
18. Goncalves-Pereira J, Silva NE, Mateus A, Pinho C, Povoa P. 2014. Assessment of pharmacokinetic changes of meropenem during therapy in septic critically ill patients. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 15:21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2050-6511-15-21.
19. nd ed. Informa Healthcare, New York, NY.
20. Drusano GL. 2003. Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 36(Suppl 1):S42-S50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/344653.
21. Tam VH, Mckinnon PS, Akins RL, Rybak MJ, Drusano GL. 2002. Pharmacodynamics of cefepime in patients with Gram-negative infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 50:425-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkf130.
22. Craig WA. 2003. Basic pharmacodynamics of antibacterials with clinical applications to the use of β-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid. Infect Dis Clin North Am 17:479-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5520(03)00065-5.
23. Ariano RE, Nyhlén A, Donnelly JP, Sitar DS, Harding GKM, Zelenitsky SA. 2005. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem in febrile neutropenic patients with bacteremia. Ann Pharmacother 39:32-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1345/aph.1E271.
24. Kikuchi E, Kikuchi J, Nasuhara Y, Oizumi S, Ishizaka A, Nishimura M. 2009. Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of biapenem in bronchial epithelial lining fluid in healthy volunteers given half-hour and three-hour intravenous infusions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:2799-2803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01578-08.
25. Lodise TP, Sorgel F, Melnick D, Mason B, Kinzig M, Drusano GL. 2011. Penetration of meropenem into epithelial lining fluid of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 1606-1610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01330-10.
26. Drusano GL, Lodise TP, Melnick D, Liu W, Oliver A, Mena A, VanScoy B, Louie A. 2011. Meropenem penetration into epithelial lining fluid in mice and humans and delineation of exposure targets. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:3406-3412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01559-10.