JAC Advance Access originally published online on August 13, 2003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2003) 52, 518-521
© 2003 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of meropenem in healthy volunteers following administration by intermittent infusion or bolus injection
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkla 90110, Thailand
Received 22 January 2003; returned 8 April 2003; revised 12 June 2003; accepted 18 June 2003
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem when administered by 3 h infusion or bolus injection regimens.
Patients and methods: The study was a randomized three-way crossover study with a 1 week wash-out period in 12 healthy volunteers. Each subject received a single dose of meropenem in three regimens: (i) bolus injection of 1 g meropenem; (ii) 3 h infusion of 1 g meropenem; and (iii) 3 h infusion of 0.5 g meropenem.
Results: Following bolus injection of 1 g meropenem, the mean ± S.D. percentages of the t > MIC of 4, 2 and 1 mg/L were 42.50 ± 6.20%, 54.38 ± 7.64% and 67.04 ± 8.47% of an 8 h dosing interval, respectively. For the 3 h infusion of 1 g meropenem, the percentages of the t > MIC of 4, 2 and 1 mg/L were 59.27 ± 7.34%, 71.97 ± 8.63% and 86.07 ± 9.41% of an 8 h dosing interval, respectively. For the 3 h infusion of 0.5 g meropenem, the percentages of the t > MIC of 4, 2 and 1 mg/L were 47.27 ± 5.34%, 59.36 ± 6.60% and 71.44 ± 8.45% of an 8 h dosing interval, respectively.
Conclusions: We conclude that a 3 h infusion of 0.5 g or 1 g of meropenem both give greater values for t > MIC than a 1 g bolus and that intermittent infusion may be a useful mode of administration in tropical countries where drug instability may prevent the use of continuous infusion.
Keywords: continuous infusion, intermittent injection, carbapenem
* Corresponding author. Tel/Fax: +66-74-429385; E-mail: jasutep{at}ratree.psu.ac.th
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Kikuchi, J. Kikuchi, Y. Nasuhara, S. Oizumi, A. Ishizaka, and M. Nishimura 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., July 1, 2009; 53(7): 2799 - 2803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Jaruratanasirikul and T. Sudsai Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of imipenem in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia following administration by 2 or 0.5 h infusion J. Antimicrob. Chemother., March 1, 2009; 63(3): 560 - 563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Lorente, L. Lorenzo, M. M Martin, A. Jimenez, and M. L Mora Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli Ann. Pharmacother., February 1, 2006; 40(2): 219 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Jaruratanasirikul, N. Raungsri, J. Punyo, and S. Sriwiriyajan Pharmacokinetics of imipenem in healthy volunteers following administration by 2 h or 0.5 h infusion J. Antimicrob. Chemother., December 1, 2005; 56(6): 1163 - 1165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Jaruratanasirikul, S. Sriwiriyajan, and J. Punyo Comparison of the Pharmacodynamics of Meropenem in Patients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia following Administration by 3-Hour Infusion or Bolus Injection Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., April 1, 2005; 49(4): 1337 - 1339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|