Continuous infusion of ceftazidime for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma receiving high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Antimicrobial treatment of febrile neutropenia: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic considerations

Patients with cancer or hematologic diseases are particularly at risk of infection leading to high morbidity, mortality and costs. Extensive data show that optimization of the administration of antimicrobials according to their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters improves clinical outcome. Evidence is growing that when pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters are used to target not only clinical cure but also eradication, the selection resistance is also contained. This is of particular importance in patients with neutropenia in whom increasing rates of drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria have been reported, particularly Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Based on experimental and clinical studies, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters are discussed in this review for each antibiotic used in febrile neutropenia in order to help physicians improve dosing and optimization of antimicrobial agents.

Optimizing antimicrobial therapy in sepsis and septic shock

Every patient with sepsis and septic shock must be evaluated thoroughly at presentation before the initiation of antibiotic therapy. However, in most situations, an abridged initial assessment focusing on critical diagnostic and management planning elements is sufficient. Intravenous antibiotics should be administered as early as possible, and always within the first hour of recognizing severe sepsis and septic shock. Broad-spectrum antibiotics must be selected with one or more agents active against likely bacterial or fungal pathogens and with good penetration into the presumed source. Antimicrobial therapy should be reevaluated daily to optimize efficacy, prevent resistance, avoid toxicity, and minimize costs. Consider combination therapy in Pseudomonas infections, and combination empiric therapy in neutropenic patients. Combination therapy should be continued for no more than 3 to 5 days and de-escalation should occur following availability of susceptibilities. The duration of antibiotic therapy typically is limited to 7 to 10 days; longer duration is considered if response is slow, if there is inadequate surgical source control, or in the case of immunologic deficiencies. Antimicrobial therapy should be stopped if infection is not considered the etiologic factor for a shock state.

Optimizing antimicrobial therapy in sepsis and septic shock

This article reviews principles in the rational use of antibiotics in sepsis and septic shock and presents evidence-based recommendations for optimal antibiotic therapy. Every patient with sepsis and septic shock must be evaluated at presentation before the initiation of antibiotic therapy. However, in most situations, an abridged initial assessment focusing on critical diagnostic and management planning elements is sufficient. Intravenous antibiotics should be administered as early as possible, and always within the first hour of recognizing severe sepsis and septic shock. Broad-spectrum antibiotics must be selected with one or more agents active against likely bacterial or fungal pathogens and with good penetration into the presumed source. Antimicrobial therapy should be reevaluated daily to optimize efficacy, prevent resistance, avoid toxicity, and minimize costs. Consider combination therapy in Pseudomonas infections, and combination empiric therapy in neutropenic patients. Combination therapy should be continued for no more than 3 to 5 days and deescalation should occur following availability of susceptibilities. The duration of antibiotic therapy typically is limited to 7 to 10 days; longer duration is considered if response is slow, if there is inadequate surgical source control, or in the case of immunologic deficiencies. Antimicrobial therapy should be stopped if infection is not considered the etiologic factor for a shock state.

Continuous infusion of ceftazidime in critically ill patients undergoing continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration: pharmacokinetic evaluation and dose recommendation

Introduction

In seriously infected patients with acute renal failure and who require continuous renal replacement therapy, data on continuous infusion of ceftazidime are lacking. Here we analyzed the pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) in order to identify the optimal dosage in this setting.

Method

Seven critically ill patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. CVVHDF was performed using a 0.6 m² AN69 high-flux membrane and with blood, dialysate and ultrafiltration flow rates of 150 ml/min, 1 l/hour and 1.5 l/hour, respectively. Based on a predicted haemodiafiltration clearance of 32.5 ml/min, all patients received a 2 g loading dose of ceftazidime, followed by a 3 g/day continuous infusion for 72 hours. Serum samples were collected at 0, 3, 15 and 30 minutes and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours; dialysate/ultrafiltrate samples were taken at 2, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. Ceftazidime concentrations in serum and dialysate/ultrafiltrate were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography.

Results

The mean (± standard deviation) elimination half-life, volume of distribution, area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 72 hours, and total clearance of ceftazidime were 4 ± 1 hours, 19 ± 6 l, 2514 ± 212 mg/h per l, and 62 ± 5 ml/min, respectively. The mean serum ceftazidime steady-state concentration was 33.5 mg/l (range 28.8–36.3 mg/l). CVVHDF effectively removed continuously infused ceftazidime, with a sieving coefficient and haemodiafiltration clearance of 0.81 ± 0.11 and 33.6 ± 4 mg/l, respectively.

Conclusion

We conclude that a dosing regimen of 3 g/day ceftazidime, by continuous infusion, following a 2 g loading dose, results in serum concentrations more than four times the minimum inhibitory concentration for all susceptible pathogens, and we recommend this regimen in critically ill patients undergoing CVVHDF.

Algunas reflexiones acerca de la administración de antibióticos betalactámicos en infusión continua

Numerous studies on continuous intravenous infusion of betalactam antibiotics have indicated that this could be a useful strategy for treating nosocomial infections as well as exacerbations of pulmonary infections in patients with cystic fibrosis and episodes of febrile neutropenia. From the pharmacodynamic viewpoint, betalactam antibiotics have a time-dependent behavior. Thus, the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic index that best correlates with therapeutic efficacy appears to be the time during which free antibiotic concentrations remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the infecting microorganism. Continuous infusion of betalactams successfully optimizes this pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic index. Furthermore, some studies have shown that this therapeutic strategy may be favorable economically.

Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibacterials with time-dependent action: a systematic review of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters

We performed a systematic review of randomised clinical trials to evaluate the comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the continuous versus intermittent mode of intravenous administration of various antibacterials. Data were identified from PubMed (January 1950 to January 2005), Current Contents, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and references from relevant articles and reviews. Seventeen randomised clinical trials comparing continuous with intermittent intravenous administration of the same antibacterial regimen and examining the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were included in this systematic review. We reviewed data regarding the clinical setting, number of participants, antibacterial agents and dosages used, as well as maximum serum concentration (Cmax), trough serum concentration (Cmin), steady-state or plateau serum concentration (Css), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), time above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) [T>MIC], AUC: MIC, elimination rate constant, elimination half-life, volume of distribution and systematic clearance. The mean Cmax of the intermittently administered antibacterials was higher compared with Css achieved by the continuous infusion of the same antibacterial in all eligible studies (Cmax was on average 5.5 times higher than Css, range 1.9-11.2). Css was on average 5.8 times higher than the Cmin of the intermittently administered antibacterials (range 1.2-15.6). In three of six studies the length of time that the drug concentration was above the MIC of the responsible pathogens was longer in patients receiving the antibacterials continuously. In conclusion, the reviewed data suggest that the continuous intravenous infusion of antibacterials with time-dependent bacterial killing seems to be superior than the intermittent intravenous administration, from a pharmacodynamic point of view, at least when treating bacteria with high MIC values for the studied antibacterials.

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial

Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Owing to inclusion criteria, it was possible for the same patient to be randomized several times. A total of 219 individual patients were admitted to a prospective randomized clinical study: 24 patients were included twice. Patients (23.5%) remained afebrile. Patients who developed febrile neutropenia were randomized to receive intravenous ceftazidime (n = 74 patients, group I) or piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 87 patients, group II). Response to first-line antibiotic treatment was seen in 55% (group I) and 53% (group II). After the addition of vancomycin, a further 19% (group I) and 24% (group II) of the patients became afebrile. Causes of fever were: microbiologically documented infection in 36 and 34 patients of group I and II; Clostridium difficile in eight and 12 patients of group I and II, and fever of unknown origin in 30 and 41 patients of group I and II. One patient died in each group. Single-agent therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam is as effective as ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever and is well tolerated. Direct and indirect costs of both treatment regimes are equivalent.

Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibiotics: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Intermittent intravenous administration of antibiotics is the first-line approach in the management of severe infections worldwide. However, the potential benefits of alternate modes of administration of antibiotics, including continuous intravenous infusion, deserve further evaluation. We did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing continuous intravenous infusion with intermittent intravenous administration of the same antibiotic regimen. Nine randomised controlled trials studying beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, and vancomycin were included. Clinical failure was lower, although without statistical significance, in patients receiving continuous infusion of antibiotics (pooled OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01); the difference was statistically significant in a subset of randomised controlled trials that used the same total daily antibiotic dose for both intervention arms (0.70, 0.50-0.98, fixed and random effects models). Regarding mortality and nephrotoxicity, no differences were found (mortality 0.89, 0.48-1.64; nephrotoxicity 0.91, 0.56-1.47). In conclusion, the data suggest that the administration of the same total antibiotic dose by continuous intravenous infusion may be more efficient, with regard to clinical effectiveness, compared with the intermittent mode. In an era of gradually increasing resistance among most pathogens, the potential advantages of continuous intravenous administration of antibiotics on several clinical outcomes should be further investigated.