Influence of Peritoneal Dialysate Flow Rate on the Pharmacokinetics of Cefazolin

Objective

To determine the impact of dialysate flow rate (DFR) on cefazolin pharmacokinetics (PK) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.

Methods

A meta-analysis of published reports, identified by MEDLINE search (1966-2002) and other sources, containing information on cefazolin PK data in PD patients was conducted. Data were analyzed based upon low DFR (≤ 5.50 mL/minute) or high DFR (> 5.50 mL/minute). Data available were from North American (NA) ( n = 45) and Singaporean ( n = 10) patients. Complete data sets were available for 33 patients (CDS patients). Data were analyzed with respect to data origin and data set completeness: all patients (ALL), NA, and CDS. Analysis of log-transformed cefazolin PK data was performed to determine coefficient of determination ( r2) between DFR and cefazolin elimination rate constant (kel), clearance total (ClT), and clearance peritoneal (ClPD). Clearance total data were extrapolated to DFR observed in continuous flow PD.

Results

Published literature provided data on 55 PD patients (12 high DFR, 43 low DFR). Regardless of data origin (ALL, NA, or CDS), a prominent coefficient of determination ( p < 0.0001) existed between DFR and all cefazolin PK data except ClPD. The p value for DFR correlation to ClPD was 0.953, 0.011, and 0.036 for ALL, NA, and CDS patients, respectively. Cefazolin ClT and ClPD increased at higher DFRs.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that an increased DFR leads to an increased rate of cefazolin clearance in NA PD patients. The impact of Asian descent on cefazolin ClPD warrants further investigation. Clinicians dosing cefazolin in PD patients using a higher DFR than that used to determine cefazolin PK should use increased doses or prescribe lower/comparable DFRs. Data are not yet available for patients prescribed very high DFRs ( e.g., continuous flow PD); extrapolation of our results demonstrates significant influences on clearance and risk for underdosing.

Vancomycin and Ciprofloxacin: Systemic Antibiotic Administration for Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis

Objectives

Peritonitis due to peritoneal dialysis (PD) is best treated empirically while waiting for the results of the dialysate culture. Thus, antibiotic therapy must cover both gram-positive and gram-negative micro-organisms. First, over a period of 9 years in a multicenter study we evaluated the efficiency of a vancomycin and ciprofloxacin combination given as the first-line treatment protocol for PD peritonitis. Second, we evaluated whether a systemic route of administration of the antibiotics could be an interesting alternative to the usual cumbersome intraperitoneal drug administration.

Methods

Vancomycin 15 mg/kg body weight, intravenous, and oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg two times per day (500 mg twice per day if residual creatinine clearance was above 3 mL/minute) were prescribed at diagnosis of peritonitis. Vancomycin injections were repeated (when blood trough level was expected to be below 12 μg/mL) in cases of gram-positive organisms for a total duration of 3 weeks. Ciprofloxacin was given for a total of 3 weeks in cases of gram-negative and a total of 10 days for susceptible gram-positive infections.

Results

A total of 129 episodes of peritonitis occurred; 28 of them were not included in the study because of protocol violation ( n = 15) or fungal ( n = 7) or fecal ( n = 6) peritonitis, leaving 101 peritonitis episodes for analysis. 52 (51.5%) gram-positive and 28 (27.7%) gram-negative organisms were grown; 38 gram-positive organisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci. No organism was identified in 8 peritonitis episodes, whereas 13 peritonitis episodes were caused by more than 1 organism. 35% of the coagulase-negative staphylococci were resistant to first-generation cephalosporin and methicillin, whereas all were susceptible to vancomycin. For gram-negative bacilli, the susceptibility rate was 96% and 95% for ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime respectively. The overall treatment success rate was 77.2% (78 of the 101 peritonitis episodes): 61.4% at first intention and 15.8% after optimization of the antibiotic therapy (second intention). The protocol failed in 22.8% of the peritonitis episodes. Hospitalization was required in 52% of the peritonitis episodes; average hospitalization was 11 (range 1 – 45) days.

Conclusion

Systemic vancomycin and ciprofloxacin administration is a simple and efficient first-line protocol antibiotic therapy for PD peritonitis. In our opinion, vancomycin should still be used for gram-positive infections because of its high susceptibility rate compared with first-generation cephalosporins, providing a close monitoring of the local epidemiology. Oral ciprofloxacin provides satisfactory results in gram-negative infections, comparable to those obtained with intraperitoneal ceftazidime or aminoglycosides.

Intraperitoneal cefazolin and ceftazidime during short-dwell exchange in peritoneal dialysis patients with peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Intraperitoneal (IP) cefazolin and ceftazidime during the short-dwell (≤ 2 h) automated exchange has been shown to provide adequate dialysate and plasma concentrations for up to 24 h in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients without peritonitis. This study aimed to evaluate plasma and dialysate concentration of this novel IP cefazolin and ceftazidime regimen during the first 24 h in PD patients with peritonitis.

METHODS

Cefazolin and ceftazidime (2500 mg each) were added to in to a 5-L bag containing 2.5% of dextrose PD fluid which was placed on the warmer of PD cycling machine. Patients underwent five exchanges of 2-L PD fluid over 10 h by the PD cycling machine without last fill or additional dwell. Plasma samples and dialysate samples were collected over 24 h. Cefazolin and ceftazidime concentrations in plasma and dialysate were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography.

RESULTS

Seven PD patients with peritonitis participated in this study. Plasma cefazolin and ceftazidime levels increased substantially within the first few hours, peaked around 6-10 h, and sustained well above the target plasma concentrations (10 mg L^-1 for cefazolin and 16 mg L^-1 for ceftazidime) until 24 h. Dialysate cefazolin and ceftazidime levels were sustained above the target peritoneal concentrations (2 mg L^-1 for cefazolin and 8 mg L^-1 for ceftazidime) throughout the PD session except in some samples which the antibiotics levels were unusually low, probably from beta-lactamase activity.

CONCLUSIONS

IP cefazolin and ceftazidime during the short-dwell automated exchange could provide adequate dialysate and plasma concentrations in peritonitis patients. This novel regimen is a promising regimen for peritonitis in PD patients.

Short-Dwell Cycling Intraperitoneal Cefazolin plus Ceftazidime in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

Background

Current guidelines suggest that intraperitoneal (IP) antibiotics should be administered only in a long peritoneal dialysis (PD) dwell (≥ 6 hours). The long dwell might result in low ultrafiltration and volume overload. We aim to examine plasma and dialysate concentration of cefazolin and ceftazidime after IP administration in a short-dwell (≤ 2 hours) automated cycling exchange.

Methods

Stable PD patients without peritonitis were invited to participate in the present study. Patients underwent 5 2-liter exchanges of PD fluid over 10 hours by the PD cycling machine without last fill or additional dwell. Cefazolin and ceftazidime (20 mg/kg each) were added to the first 5-liter bag of 2.5% dextrose PD fluid that was placed on the warmer of the PD cycling machine. Plasma samples were collected at 12 time-points over 24 hours. Dialysate samples from each exchange were also collected. Antibiotic concentrations in plasma and dialysate were then determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Results

Six stable PD patients without peritonitis participated in the study. Dialysate cefazolin and ceftazidime were consistently high throughout the PD session in all patients (26 - 360 mg/L). Plasma cefazolin and ceftazidime exceeded the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for susceptible organisms (≤ 8 mg/L) within 2 hours (cefazolin 28.5 ± 8.0 and ceftazidime 12.5 ± 3.4 mg/L), peak at 10 hours (51.1 ± 14.1 and 23.0 ± 5.2 mg/L) and sustained well above the MIC at 24 hours (42.0 ± 9.6 and 17.1 ± 3.1 mg/L).

Conclusions

The short-dwell cycling IP cefazolin and ceftazidime could provide adequate plasma concentration for up to 24 hours. Daily short-dwell cycling IP cefazolin and ceftazidime might be used to treat peritonitis in PD patients already using a PD cycling machine as well as selected continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) patients who need shorter dwells during peritonitis due to increasing peritoneal solute transport.

Review of Antibiotic Dosing with Peritonitis in APD

Peritonitis is the leading cause of transfer from peritoneal dialysis (PD) to hemodialysis (HD). It is also the leading cause of hospitalization of PD patients. The usual treatment of peritonitis for automated PD (APD) patients consists of antibiotics given once daily in the long dwell. However, the once-daily antibiotic dosing recommendations are based primarily on studies with continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) regimens. Published studies on antibiotic dosing in APD are very limited. We will review the scant literature on this topic. It is possible that extrapolating once-daily dosing from CAPD to APD may lead to underdosing. There is a need for further pharmacokinetic studies of antibiotic dosing in APD.

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is associated with significant morbidity including death, hospitalisation, and need to change from PD to haemodialysis. Treatment is aimed to reduce morbidity and recurrence. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to March 2014 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, and handsearching conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in PD patients (adults and children). We included any study that evaluated: administration of an antibiotic by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal (IP), intravenous (IV)); dose of an antibiotic agent; different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Multiple authors independently extracted data on study risk of bias and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model. We expressed summarised treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 eligible studies in 2433 participants: antimicrobial agents (36 studies); urokinase (4 studies), peritoneal lavage (1 study), and IP immunoglobulin (1 study). We did not identify any optimal antibiotic agent or combination of agents. IP glycopeptides (vancomycin or teicoplanin) had uncertain effects on primary treatment response, relapse rates, and need for catheter removal compared to first generation cephalosporins, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.72). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement was better than urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91) although evidence was limited to a single small study. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing schedules had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure in one small study (RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). Longer duration treatment (21 days of IV vancomycin and IP gentamicin) had uncertain effects on risk of treatment relapse compared with 10 days treatment (1 study, 49 patients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.95) although may have increased ototoxicity.In general, review conclusions were based on a small number of studies with few events in which risk of bias was generally high; interventions were heterogeneous, and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs evaluating optimal timing of catheter removal and data for automated PD were absent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the studies evaluating treatment of PD-related peritonitis are small, out-dated, of poor quality, and had inconsistent definitions and dosing regimens. IP administration of antibiotics was superior to IV administration for treating PD-associated peritonitis and glycopeptides appear optimal for complete cure of peritonitis, although evidence for this finding was assessed as low quality. PD catheter removal may be the best treatment for relapsing or persistent peritonitis.Evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis. No specific antibiotic appears to have superior efficacy for preventing treatment failure or relapse of peritonitis, but evidence is limited to few trials. The role of routine peritoneal lavage or urokinase is uncertain.

Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a cost-effective alternative to hemodialysis (HD). PD catheters have traditionally been inserted through a small open incision, but insertion using laparoscopic visualization has become increasingly popular and is associated with less catheter malfunction. The aim of this study was to compare costs of laparoscopic and open insertion strategies while taking into account postoperative complications and future salvage procedures.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was constructed to simulate 1 y outcomes after PD catheter insertion by either the open or laparoscopic approach. Possible outcomes after PD catheter placement included functional catheter, infection, and catheter malfunction. Ultimately, patients continued with successful PD or switched to HD. Baseline probabilities, costs, and ranges were determined from a critical review of the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the model strength over a range of clinically relevant probabilities.

RESULTS

The total annual costs, including postoperative management and dialysis treatment, were $69,491 for laparoscopic insertion and $69,960 for open insertion. In case of a catheter malfunction, an initial attempt at salvage by fluoroscopy-guided wire manipulation cost less than a first attempt by laparoscopic repositioning.

CONCLUSIONS

When accounting for a year of postoperative management and treatment, laparoscopic insertion can be less costly than open insertion in the hands of an experienced surgeon. Despite higher initial costs, PD catheter insertion under laparoscopic visualization can have lower total costs due to fewer postoperative complications. With increasing emphasis on cost-effective care, laparoscopic insertion is a valuable tool for initiating PD.

[Ecology and mechanisms of bacterial resistance to antibiotics in peritonitis]

Peritonitis remains a common complication of peritoneal dialysis. The aim of our study is to describe the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria isolated during peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis, to determine whether antibiotic therapy proposed by the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) is adapted to the mechanisms of resistance. All causative microorganisms of peritonitis, isolated in 106 dialysis patients and reported 170 episodes of peritonitis, during the study period (01/01/2005 to 31/12/2010) were reviewed. According to the usual classification, twelve groups of microorganism were created. An interpretive reading of antibiograms was performed in each group to identify resistance phenotypes. The species most frequently isolated are coagulase-negative staphylococci (n=73) of which 46 had PBP2a (penicillin-binding protein). Many Enterobacteriaceae were also isolated (n=45), they are susceptible to third generation cephalosporins with the exception of Enterobacteriaceae producing an extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) or a cephalosporinase. Except for staphylococci, probabilistic antibiotic therapy recommended by the ISPD to treat peritonitis is effective. Indeed, many staphylococci producing a PBP2a, a first-generation cephalosporin cannot be administered in all cases. It is therefore necessary to identify patients with a strain of staphylococcus producing a PBP2a, it must be treated by vancomycin.

Similar peritonitis outcome in CAPD and APD patients with dialysis modality continuation during peritonitis

BACKGROUND

As few data exist on treatment of peritonitis in patients on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), and as pharmacokinetics of several antibiotics are reported to be unfavorable in APD, some favor switching to continuous ambulant PD (CAPD) while treating APD-related peritonitis. We explored whether treating peritonitis with patients continuing their usual PD modality had an effect on outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 508 episodes of PD-associated peritonitis seen in 205 patients in our center from January 1993 to January 2007. During this period, the standard initial therapy for PD-related peritonitis was a combination of intraperitoneal gentamicin and rifampicin.

RESULTS

There was no difference in cure rate between CAPD and APD groups. Likewise, initial and maximal leukocyte counts in the PD fluid (PDF), relapse rates, catheter removal rates, and death during treatment of peritonitis were similar in the CAPD and APD groups. Median (interquartile range) duration of elevated leukocyte count in PDF was longer in APD: 5.0 (3.0 - 9.0) days versus 4.0 (2.5 - 7.0) days in CAPD (p <0.001). APD patients were treated with antibiotics longer than CAPD patients: 16.0 (12.5 - 21.0) versus 15.0 (12.0 - 18.0) days (p = 0.036). Also, after correction for possible confounders, odds ratios for death and for the combined end point death or catheter removal showed no difference when patients treated for peritonitis stayed on their own modality.

CONCLUSION

Regarding rate of relapse, mortality, or the combined end point mortality plus catheter removal, we found no difference between CAPD and APD patients continuing their own PD modality during treatment of PD-related peritonitis. Intermediate end points such as duration of elevated PDF leukocyte count and duration of antibiotic treatment were longer in APD patients.

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and recurrence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists without language restriction. Date of search: February 2005

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients (adults and children) evaluating: administration of an antibiotic(s) by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal, intravenous); dose of an antibiotic agent(s); different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the dichotomous results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 36 studies (2089 patients): antimicrobial agents (30); urokinase (4), peritoneal lavage (1) intraperitoneal (IP) immunoglobulin (1). No superior antibiotic agent or combination of agents were identified. Primary response and relapse rates did not differ between IP glycopeptide-based regimens compared to first generation cephalosporin regimens, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.58). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (1 study, 37 patients: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous IP and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure (1 study, 75 patients: RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). The methodological quality of most included studies was suboptimal and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs regarding duration of antibiotics or timing of catheter removal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on one study, IP administration of antibiotics is superior to IV dosing for treating PD peritonitis. Intermittent and continuous dosing of antibiotics are equally efficacious. There is no role shown for routine peritoneal lavage or use of urokinase. No interventions were found to be associated with significant harm.

Treatment of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis frequently complicates peritoneal dialysis. Appropriate treatment is essential to reduce adverse outcomes. Available trial evidence about peritoneal dialysis peritonitis treatment was evaluated.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

The Cochrane CENTRAL Registry (2005 issue), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1985 to February 2006), and reference lists were searched to identify randomized trials of treatments for patients with peritoneal dialysis peritonitis.

INTERVENTIONS

Trials of antibiotics (comparisons of routes, agents, and dosing regimens), fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage, and intraperitoneal immunoglobulin.

OUTCOMES

Treatment failure, relapse, catheter removal, microbiological eradication, hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

36 eligible trials were identified: 30 trials (1,800 patients) of antibiotics; 4 trials (229 patients) of urokinase; 1 trial of peritoneal lavage (36 patients); and 1 trial of intraperitoneal immunoglobulin (24 patients). No superior antimicrobial class was identified. In particular, glycopeptides and first-generation cephalosporins were equivalent (3 trials, 387 patients; relative risk [RR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 3.58). Simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at decreasing treatment failures (1 trial, 37 patients; RR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous and intermittent intraperitoneal antibiotic dosing were equivalent regarding treatment failure (4 trials, 338 patients; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.30) and relapse (4 trials, 324 patients; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39). One trial showed superiority of intraperitoneal antibiotics over intravenous therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The method quality of trials generally was suboptimal and outcome definitions were inconsistent. Small patient numbers led to inadequate power to show an effect. Interventions, such as optimal duration of antibiotic therapy, were not evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials did not identify superior antibiotic regimens. Intermittent and continuous antibiotic dosing are equivalent treatment strategies.

Efficacy of a non-vancomycin-based peritoneal dialysis peritonitis protocol

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis has a significant impact upon morbidity and mortality of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Gram-positive organisms account for the majority of infections and vancomycin is a cost effective broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment for PD peritonitis, but this may lead to the emergence of multiple antibiotic-resistant organisms. The purpose of the present paper was to evaluate the efficacy of a non-vancomycin-based protocol comprising cephazolin and gentamicin, which was introduced in the present PD population as empirical treatment for peritonitis.

METHODS

The study involved 82 peritonitis episodes over a 4-year period in 58 patients, excluding those with previous methicillin-resistant staphylococcal peritonitis.

RESULTS

With cephazolin and gentamicin there was no apparent difference in response or relapse rates in comparison to reported studies using vancomycin-based first-line therapy protocols.

CONCLUSION

We advocate initial treatment of PD peritonitis with non-vancomycin-based therapy given similar efficacy and the potential for reduction of resistant organisms.

Continuous peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: a review and current concepts

The percentage of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients in the United States maintained on continuous peritoneal dialysis (CPD) therapy is decreasing. Complications from CPD therapy, including peritonitis, may be the reason for the decline. Improvements in CPD technology and a better understanding of the risk factors that predispose patients to the development of peritonitis have been responsible for a decline in the rate of peritonitis. Yet peritonitis remains a significant cause of patient morbidity and mortality and the overall outcome of peritonitis is not acceptable. Factors that have limited our ability to lessen the impact of peritonitis include a lack of data on dosing antibiotics in patients on continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) therapy, a lack of knowledge concerning the biology of bacterial biofilm, and the development of resistance to the current prophylactic antibiotic protocols. Further studies are needed concerning the optimal management of the peritoneal catheter and whether it is feasible to resume CPD therapy after catheter removal.