Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on September 14, 2005
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2005 56(5):893-898; doi:10.1093/jac/dki335
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
56/5/893    most recent
dki335v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Frei, C. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Frei, C. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of ß-lactam regimens for the treatment of Gram-negative pulmonary infections in the intensive care unit based on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics

David S. Burgess1,2,* and Christopher R. Frei1,3

1 College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station Stop A1900, Austin, TX, USA 78712; 2 Departments of Pharmacology and Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Clinical Pharmacy Programs-MSC 6220, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr., San Antonio, TX, USA 78229–3900; 3 Department of Pharmacology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Clinical Pharmacy Programs-MSC 6220, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr., San Antonio, TX, USA 78229–3900

Received 27 May 2005; returned 5 July 2005; revised 19 August 2005; accepted 24 August 2005


* Corresponding author. Tel: +1-210-567-8329; Fax: +1-210-567-8328; Email: BurgessD{at}uthscsa.edu

Objectives: This study utilized pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics to compare ß-lactam regimens for the empirical and definitive treatment of Gram-negative pulmonary infections in the ICU.

Methods: Susceptibility data were extracted from the 2002 Intensive Care Unit Surveillance System (ISS) and pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained from published human studies. Monte Carlo simulation was used to model the free percent time above the MIC (free %T > MIC) for 18 ß-lactam regimens against all Gram-negative isolates, Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. The cumulative fraction of response (CFR) was determined for bacteriostatic and bactericidal targets (free %T > MIC): penicillins (≥30/50%), cephalosporins/monobactams (≥40/70%) and carbapenems (≥20/40%).

Results: The 2002 ISS database contained MICs for 2408 Gram-negative isolates including 1430 Enterobacteriaceae, 799 P. aeruginosa, and 179 A. baumannii. Imipenem had the highest percentage susceptible for all Gram-negatives, Enterobacteriaceae and A. baumannii, while piperacillin/tazobactam had the highest percentage susceptible for P. aeruginosa. For empirical therapy, imipenem 0.5 g every 6 h, cefepime 2 g every 8 h and ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h demonstrated the highest CFR. For definitive therapy, imipenem 0.5 g every 6 h, ertapenem 1 g daily and cefepime 2 g every 8 h, cefepime 1 g every 8 h and cefepime 1 g every 12 h had the highest bactericidal CFR against Enterobacteriaceae; ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h, cefepime 2 g every 8 h, piperacillin/tazobactam 3.375 g every 4 h, ceftazidime 1 g every 8 h and aztreonam 1 g every 8 h against P. aeruginosa; and imipenem 0.5 g every 6 h, ticarcillin/clavulanate 3.1 g every 4 h, ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h, cefepime 2 g every 8 h and ticarcillin/clavulanate 3.1 g every 6 h against A. baumannii.

Conclusions: Based on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, imipenem 0.5 g every 6 h, cefepime 2 g every 8 h and ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h should be the preferred ß-lactam regimens for the empirical treatment of Gram-negative pulmonary infections in the ICU. The order of preference varied against Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii.

Keywords: Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics , Gram-negative aerobic bacteria , pneumonia , bacterial


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
B. Georges, J.-M. Conil, T. Seguin, S. Ruiz, V. Minville, P. Cougot, J.-F. Decun, H. Gonzalez, G. Houin, O. Fourcade, et al.
Population Pharmacokinetics of Ceftazidime in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Influence of Glomerular Filtration Rate, Mechanical Ventilation, and Reason for Admission
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., October 1, 2009; 53(10): 4483 - 4489.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
D. S. Burgess and R. P. Rapp
Bugs versus drugs: Addressing the pharmacist's challenge
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., May 1, 2008; 65(9_Supplement_2): S4 - S15.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
C. R. Frei, N. P. Wiederhold, and D. S. Burgess
Antimicrobial breakpoints for Gram-negative aerobic bacteria based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models with Monte Carlo simulation
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., March 1, 2008; 61(3): 621 - 628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.