JAC Advance Access originally published online on April 27, 2009
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2009 64(1):142-150; doi:10.1093/jac/dkp139
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original research |
Meropenem dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis and without renal dysfunction: intermittent bolus versus continuous administration? Monte Carlo dosing simulations and subcutaneous tissue distribution
1 Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 2 Pharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia 3 Department of Intensive Care, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia 4 School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 5 Therapeutics Research Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Received 27 November 2008; returned 26 January 2009; revised 19 March 2009; accepted 21 March 2009
* Corresponding author. Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, Level 3 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Butterfield St, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia. Tel: +61-7-3636-4108; Fax: +61-7-3636-3542; E-mail: j.roberts2{at}uq.edu.au
Objectives: To compare the plasma and subcutaneous tissue concentration–time profiles of meropenem administered by intermittent bolus dosing or continuous infusion to critically ill patients with sepsis and without renal dysfunction, and to use population pharmacokinetic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations to assess the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) against Gram-negative pathogens likely to be encountered in critical care units.
Patients and methods: We randomized 10 patients with sepsis to receive meropenem by intermittent bolus administration (n = 5; 1 g 8 hourly) or an equal dose administered by continuous infusion (n = 5). Serial subcutaneous tissue concentrations were determined using microdialysis and compared with plasma data for first-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics. Population pharmacokinetic modelling of plasma data and Monte Carlo simulations were then undertaken with NONMEM®.
Results: It was found that continuous infusion maintains higher median trough concentrations, in both plasma (intermittent bolus 0 versus infusion 7 mg/L) and subcutaneous tissue (0 versus 4 mg/L). All simulated intermittent bolus, extended and continuous infusion dosing achieved 100% of pharmacodynamic targets against most Gram-negative pathogens. Superior obtainment of pharmacodynamic targets was achieved using administration by extended or continuous infusion against less susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species.
Conclusions: This is the first study to compare the relative concentration–time data of bolus and continuous administration of meropenem at the subcutaneous tissue and plasma levels. We found that the administration of meropenem by continuous infusion maintains higher concentrations in subcutaneous tissue and plasma than by intermittent bolus dosing. Administration by extended or continuous infusion will achieve superior CFR against less-susceptible organisms in patients without renal dysfunction.
Keywords: β-lactams , pharmacokinetics , pharmacodynamics , continuous infusion , microdialysis , tissue distribution