Skip Navigation



JAC Advance Access published online on August 30, 2006

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkl349
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
58/5/987    most recent
dkl349v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roos, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Kirkpatrick, C. M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roos, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Kirkpatrick, C. M. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. 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
Received May 25, 2006
Revised July 25, 2006
Accepted August 2, 2006

Original article

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic rationale for cefepime dosing regimens in intensive care units

Juliana F. Roos 1 *, Jurgen Bulitta 2, Jeffrey Lipman 3, and Carl M. J. Kirkpatrick 1

1 School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
2 IBMP--Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research, Paul-Ehrlich-Strasse, 19 D-90562 Heroldsberg, Nürnberg, Germany
3 Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Queensland and Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Juliana F. Roos, E-mail: jroos{at}pharmacy.uq.edu.au


   Abstract

Objectives: (i) To develop a population pharmacokinetics (PK) model for cefepime in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). (ii) To assess the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile of various cefepime dosing regimens and to assess their expected probability of target attainment (= PTA expectation value) against common ICU pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Methods: Thirteen ICU patients received cefepime 2 g 12 hourly intravenous (3 min). Twelve blood samples were taken on two occasions: (i) immediately after initial dose; and (ii) between days 3 and 6 after starting therapy. Population PK models were developed using NONMEM. Based on the final covariate model, Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken (n = 1000) to simulate free-drug concentrations of cefepime for two administration methods: (i) intermittent bolus administration (IBA); and (ii) continuous infusion (CI). Concentration-time profiles were evaluated by the probability of achieving free-drug concentration above the MIC for >65% of the dosing interval. Finally, using local MIC distributions of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii the PTA expectation values for each dosing administration method were evaluated.

Results: A three-compartment model with zero-order input best described the concentration-time data. The PTA expectation values for E. coli and K. pneumoniae were >90% in all CI doses but only when administered as 1 g every 6 h and higher daily doses for IBA. For the current treatment protocol, 2 g every 12 h, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii achieved target concentrations of only 54% and 28%, respectively. For P. aeruginosa, a CI of at least 4 g/day was required to achieve a PTA expectation value >90% while for A. baumannii a 6 g/day CI only achieved a PTA expectation value of 75%.

Conclusions: When given as IBA or CI for E. coli and K. pneumoniae, cefepime should be successful in achieving the bactericidal target. For P. aeruginosa higher doses of cefepime (>4 g/day) are required to achieve the required PTA expectation value. Cefepime fails to achieve the bactericidal target even when administered at high doses, e.g. 6 g/day, for A. baumannii.

Keywords: {beta}-lactams; critically ill patients; probability of target attainment.
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
A. M. Nicasio, R. E. Ariano, S. A. Zelenitsky, A. Kim, J. L. Crandon, J. L. Kuti, and D. P. Nicolau
Population Pharmacokinetics of High-Dose, Prolonged-Infusion Cefepime in Adult Critically Ill Patients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., April 1, 2009; 53(4): 1476 - 1481.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
B. S. Chin, W. Y. Seo, D. L. Paterson, B. A. Potoski, and A. Y. Peleg
Cefepime MIC Breakpoint Resettlement in Gram-Negative Bacteria
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., January 1, 2009; 53(1): 337 - 338.
[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.