JAC Advance Access published online on August 13, 2003
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkg378
© 2003 by The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brief report
1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla
University, Hat Yai, Songkla 90110, Thailand
* Corresponding author. E-mail: jasutep{at}ratree.psu.ac.th.
Received 22 January 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
Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of meropenem
in healthy volunteers following administration by
intermittent infusion or bolus injection
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]
|
|