An open prospective study of amikacin pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients during treatment with continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration

Aminoglycoside Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

BACKGROUND

There are few studies describing aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the effect of CRRT on aminoglycoside clearance and volume of distribution (V_d).

METHODS

Retrospective observational pharmacokinetic study of adult critically ill oncologic patients who received a first dose of amikacin or tobramycin during CRRT between February 2012 and May 2017. Study outcomes included aminoglycoside clearance, V_d, and attainment of the target peak: MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) ratio as a surrogate for dosing appropriateness.

RESULTS

In total, 80 patients were included, sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED), n = 49; continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD), n = 19; continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH), n = 12. Fifty-one patients received amikacin at a median dose of 14.5 mg/kg per actual body weight and achieved a median peak level of 26.7 mg/L. Twenty-nine patients received tobramycin at a median dose of 6.5 mg/kg actual body weight and achieved a median peak level of 10.3 mg/L. The median aminoglycoside clearance was 63.1 mL/min and was similar between CRRT modality groups (P = 0.97). The median V_d was 0.47 L/kg and was different between the SLED and CVVH groups (P = 0.007). Attainment of target peak: MIC occurred in 29% in the total study population and 44% in the subgroup of 23 patients with isolates tested for aminoglycoside susceptibility.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Critically ill oncology patients undergoing CRRT exhibited reduced clearance and expanded V_d that was not significantly different between CRRT modalities. Current dosing regimens led to low peak concentrations and poor attainment of pharmacokinetic targets.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Dosing Optimization of Gentamicin in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

Purpose

Appropriate gentamicin dosing in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) patients remains undefined. This study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of gentamicin in CRRT patients and to infer the optimal dosing regimen for gentamicin.

Methods

Fourteen CRRT patients dosed with gentamicin were included to establish a population PK model to characterize the variabilities and influential covariates of gentamicin. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment and risk of toxicity for different combinations of gentamicin regimens (3–7 mg/kg q24h) and CRRT effluent doses (30–50 mL/h/kg) were evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. The probability of target attainment (PTA) was determined for the PK/PD indices of the ratio of drug peak concentration/minimum inhibitory concentration (C_max/MIC > 10) and the ratio of area under the drug concentration–time curve/MIC over 24 h (AUC_0-24h/MIC > 100), and the risk of toxicity was estimated by drug trough concentration thresholds (1 and 2 mg/L).

Results

A one-compartment model adequately described the PK characteristics of gentamicin. Covariates including body weight, age, gender, and CRRT modality did not influence the PK parameters of gentamicin based on our dataset. All studied gentamicin regimens failed to achieve satisfactory PTAs for pathogens with an MIC ≥2 mg/L. A good balance of PK/PD target attainment and risk of toxicity (>2 mg/L) was achieved under 7 mg/kg gentamicin q24h and 40 mL/kg/h CRRT dose for an MIC ≤1 mg/L. CRRT dose intensity had a significant impact on the target attainment of AUC_0-24h/MIC >100 and risk of toxicity.

Conclusion

A combination of 7 mg/kg gentamicin q24h and 40 mL/kg/h CRRT dose might be considered as a starting treatment option for CRRT patients, and drug monitoring is required to manage toxicity.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antibiotic Drugs in Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy or Intermittent Hemodialysis: A Critical Review

PURPOSE

Antibiotics are frequently used in patients receiving intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy (RRT). Continuous renal replacement may alter the pharmacokinetics (PK) and the ability to achieve PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) targets. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could help evaluate drug exposure and guide antibiotic dosage adjustment. The present review describes recent TDM data on antibiotic exposure and PK/PD target attainment (TA) in patients receiving intermittent or continuous RRT, proposing practical guidelines for performing TDM.

METHODS

Studies on antibiotic TDM performed in patients receiving intermittent or continuous RRT published between 2000 and 2020 were searched and assessed. The authors focused on studies that reported data on PK/PD TA. TDM recommendations were based on clinically relevant PK/PD relationships and previously published guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 2383 reports were retrieved. After excluding nonrelevant publications, 139 articles were selected. Overall, 107 studies reported PK/PD TA for 24 agents. Data were available for various intermittent and continuous RRT techniques. The study design, TDM practice, and definition of PK/PD targets were inconsistent across studies. Drug exposure and TA rates were highly variable. TDM seems to be necessary to control drug exposure in patients receiving intermittent and continuous RRT techniques, especially for antibiotics with narrow therapeutic margins and in critically ill patients. Practical recommendations can provide insights on relevant PK/PD targets, sampling, and timing of TDM for various antibiotic classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly variable antibiotic exposure and TA have been reported in patients receiving intermittent or continuous RRT. TDM for aminoglycosides, beta-lactams, glycopeptides, linezolid, and colistin is recommended in patients receiving RRT and suggested for daptomycin, fluoroquinolones, and tigecycline in critically ill patients on RRT.

Correlation of antimicrobial fraction unbound and sieving coefficient in critically ill patients on continuous renal replacement therapy: a systematic review

Background

Fraction unbound has been used as a surrogate for antimicrobial sieving coefficient (SC) to predict extracorporeal clearance in critically ill patients on continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), but this is based largely on expert opinion.

Objectives

To examine relationships between package insert-derived fraction unbound (Fu-P), study-specific fraction unbound (Fu-S), and SC in critically ill patients receiving CRRT.

Methods

English-language studies containing patient-specific in vivo pharmacokinetic parameters for antimicrobials in critically ill patients requiring CRRT were included. The primary outcome included correlations between Fu-S, Fu-P, and SC. Secondary outcomes included correlations across protein binding quartiles, serum albumin, and predicted in-hospital mortality, and identification of predictors for SC through multivariable analysis.

Results

Eighty-nine studies including 32 antimicrobials were included for analysis. SC was moderately correlated to Fu-S (R2 = 0.55, P < 0.001) and Fu-P (R2 = 0.41, P < 0.001). SC was best correlated to Fu-S in first (<69%) and fourth (>92%) quartiles of fraction unbound and above median albumin concentrations of 24.5 g/L (R2 = 0.71, P = 0.07). Conversely, correlation was weaker in patients with mortality estimates greater than the median of 55% (R2 = 0.06, P = 0.84). SC and Fu-P were also best correlated in the first quartile of antimicrobial fraction unbound (R2 = 0.66, P < 0.001). Increasing Fu-P, flow rate, membrane surface area, and serum albumin, and decreasing physiologic charge significantly predicted increasing SC.

Conclusions

Fu-S and Fu-P were both reasonably correlated to SC. Caution should be taken when using Fu-S to calculate extracorporeal clearance in antimicrobials with 69%–92% fraction unbound or with >55% estimated in-hospital patient mortality. Fu-P may serve as a rudimentary surrogate for SC when Fu-S is unavailable.

How To Prescribe And Troubleshoot Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: A Case-Based Review

Continuous RRT (CRRT) is the preferred dialysis modality for solute management, acid-base stability, and volume control in patients who are critically ill with AKI in the intensive care unit (ICU). CRRT offers multiple advantages over conventional hemodialysis in the critically ill population, such as greater hemodynamic stability, better fluid management, greater solute control, lower bleeding risk, and a more continuous (physiologic) approach of kidney support. Despite its frequent use, several aspects of CRRT delivery are still not fully standardized, or do not have solid evidence-based foundations. In this study, we provide a case-based review and recommendations of common scenarios and interventions encountered during the provision of CRRT to patients who are critically ill. Specific focus is on initial prescription, CRRT dosing, and adjustments related to severe hyponatremia management, concomitant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, dialysis catheter placement, use of regional citrate anticoagulation, and antibiotic dosing. This case-driven simulation is made as the clinical status of the patient evolves, and is on the basis of step-wise decisions made during the care of this patient, according to the specific patient's needs and the logistics available at the corresponding institution.

Evaluation of amikacin use and comparison of the models implemented in two Bayesian forecasting software packages to guide dosing

AIMS

Bayesian forecasting software can assist in guiding therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based dose adjustments for amikacin to achieve therapeutic targets. This study aimed to evaluate amikacin prescribing and TDM practices, and to determine the suitability of the amikacin model incorporated into the DoseMeRx® software as a replacement for the previously available software (Abbottbase®).

METHODS

Patient demographics, pathology, amikacin dosing history, amikacin concentrations and Abbottbase® predicted TDM targets (area under the curve up to 24 hours, maximum concentration and trough concentration) were collected for adults receiving intravenous amikacin (2012-2017). Concordance with the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines was assessed. Observed and predicted amikacin concentrations were compared to determine the predictive performance (bias and precision) of DoseMeRx®. Amikacin TDM targets were predicted by DoseMeRx® and compared to those predicted by Abbottbase®.

RESULTS

Overall, guideline compliance for 63 courses of amikacin in 47 patients was suboptimal. Doses were often lower than recommended. For therapy >48 h, TDM sample collection timing was commonly discordant with recommendations, therapeutic target attainment low and 34% of dose adjustments inappropriate. DoseMeRx® under-predicted amikacin concentrations by 0.9 mg/L (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.4 to -0.5) compared with observed concentrations. However, maximum concentration values (n = 19) were unbiased (-1.7 mg/L 95%CI -5.8 to 0.8) and precise (8.6% 95%CI 5.4-18.1). Predicted trough concentration values (n = 7) were, at most, 1 mg/L higher than observed. Amikacin area under the curve values estimated using Abbottbase® (181 mg h/L 95%CI 161-202) and DoseMeRx® (176 mg h/L 95%CI 152-199) were similar (P = .59).

CONCLUSION

Amikacin dosing and TDM practice was suboptimal compared with guidelines. The model implemented by DoseMeRx® is satisfactory to guide amikacin dosing.

Diafiltration flowrate is a determinant of the extent of adsorption of amikacin in renal replacement therapy using the ST150®-AN69 filter: An in vitro study

Introduction:

In continuous renal replacement therapy, conduction and convection are controlled allowing prescribing dosage regimen improving survival. In contrast, adsorption is an uncontrolled property altering drug disposition. Whether adsorption depends on flowrates is unknown. We hypothesized an in vitro model may provide information in conditions mimicking continuous renal replacement therapy in humans.

Methods:

ST150®-AN69 filter and Prismaflex dialyzer, Baxter-Gambro were used. Simulated blood flowrate was set at 200 mL/min. The flowrates in the filtration (continuous filtration), dialysis (continuous dialysis), and diafiltration (continuous diafiltration) were 1500, 2500, and 4000 mL/h, respectively. Routes of elimination were assessed using NeckEpur® analysis.

Results:

The percentages of the total amount eliminated by continuous filtration, continuous dialysis, and continuous diafiltration were 82%, 86%, and 94%, respectively. Elimination by effluents and adsorption accounted for 42% ± 7% and 58% ± 5%, 57% ± 7% and 43% ± 6%, and 84% ± 6% and 16% ± 6% of amikacin elimination, respectively. There was a linear regression between flowrates and amikacin clearance: Y = 0.6 X ± 1.7 (R2 = 0.9782). Conversely, there was a linear inverse correlation between the magnitude of amikacin adsorption and flowrate: Y = –16.9 X ± 84.1 (R2 = 0.9976).

Conclusion:

Low flowrates resulted in predominant elimination by adsorption, accounting for 58% of the elimination of amikacin from the central compartment in the continuous filtration mode at 1500 mL/h of flowrate. Thereafter, the greater the flowrate, the lower the adsorption of amikacin in a linear manner. Flowrate is a major determinant of adsorption of amikacin. There was an about 17% decrease in the rate of adsorption per increase in the flowrate of 1 L/min.

Implication of Haemodiafiltration Flow Rate on Amikacin Pharmacokinetic Parameters in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

To analyse the effect of haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) flow rate on amikacin pharmacokinetics and blood concentrations.

METHODS

Prospective observational study. Patients receiving CVVHDF and amikacin treatment were included. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using Bayesian analysis. Spearman correlation test was used in order to assess the influence of CVVHDF flux on amikacin minimum concentration (Cmin) and plasma clearance.

RESULTS

Thirty patients undergoing CVVHDF procedures were included. The treatment with amikacin started at an initial mean dose of 12.4 (4.1) mg/kg/day. An association between the flow rate and Cmin value (r = 0.261; p = 0.161) and plasma clearance was found (r = 0.268; p = 0.152). Four patients (13.3%) were not able to achieve peak concentration over MIC value higher than 8. In 4 patients, amikacin had to be discontinued due to a high Cmin value.

CONCLUSIONS

Amikacin clearance in patients with CVVHDF is affected by the flow rate used. Therefore, CVVHDF dose should be taken into account when dosing amikacin.

Evaluation of haemodialysis as a protective technique for preventing high daily dose amikacin nephrotoxicity: an experimental study in an ovine model

Changes in pharmacokinetic parameters of critically ill patients make the treatment of infections challenging, particularly when multidrug-resistant bacteria are involved. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of haemodialysis to reduce the exposure to high dose amikacin and prevent nephrotoxicity. Amikacin 50 mg/kg was administered intravenously to six adult sheep once-daily for four days. The sheep were divided into two groups according to the implementation (group 1) or not (group 2) of haemodialysis. In group 1, haemodialysis was performed for 4 h, initiated 2 h after starting amikacin infusion. Amikacin area under the curve (AUC) and trough concentrations (C_min) were used as markers of amikacin-induced nephrotoxicity. The median haemodialysis amikacin clearance was 2.14 L/h (35.6 mL/min), 14% of the mean total body clearance for 24 h. Haemodialysis reduced C_min (group 1: 0.3 µg/mL [0.3-1.1]; group 2: 1.4 µg/mL [1.1-3.9]; P = 0.0003). A trend towards reduced AUC with haemodialysis was observed (group 1: 1450 µg/mL⋅h [1311-1716]; group 2: 3126 µg/mL⋅h [2581-3171]; P = 0.10). In conclusion, haemodialysis seems interesting in reducing AUC and C_min after the injection of high-dose of amikacin, parameters known to be involved in its induced nephrotoxicity, in an experimental ovine model.

Influence of Renal Replacement Modalities on Amikacin Population Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients on Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

The objective of this study was to describe amikacin pharmacokinetics (PK) in critically ill patients receiving equal doses (30 ml/kg of body weight/h) of continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). Patients receiving amikacin and undergoing CVVH or CVVHDF were eligible. Population pharmacokinetic analysis and Monte Carlo simulation were undertaken using the Pmetrics software package for R. Sixteen patients (9 undergoing CVVH, 11 undergoing CVVHDF) and 20 sampling intervals were analyzed. A two-compartment linear model best described the data. Patient weight was the only covariate that was associated with drug clearance. The mean ± standard deviation parameter estimates were 25.2 ± 17.3 liters for the central volume, 0.89 ± 1.17 h(-1) for the rate constant for the drug distribution from the central to the peripheral compartment, 2.38 ± 6.60 h(-1) for the rate constant for the drug distribution from the peripheral to the central compartment, 4.45 ± 2.35 liters/h for hemodiafiltration clearance, and 4.69 ± 2.42 liters/h for hemofiltration clearance. Dosing simulations for amikacin supported the use of high dosing regimens (≥25 mg/kg) and extended intervals (36 to 48 h) for most patients when considering PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) targets of a maximum concentration in plasma (Cmax)/MIC ratio of ≥8 and a minimal concentration of ≤2.5 mg/liter at the end of the dosing interval. The mean clearance of amikacin was 1.8 ± 1.3 liters/h by CVVHDF and 1.3 ± 1 liters/h by CVVH. On the basis of simulations, a strategy of an extended-interval high loading dose of amikacin (25 mg/kg every 48 h) associated with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) should be the preferred approach for aminoglycoside treatment in critically ill patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). (This study is a substudy of a trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01403220.).

To increase or decrease dosage of antimicrobials in septic patients during continuous renal replacement therapy: the eternal doubt

Critical illness, acute renal failure and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) are associated with changes in pharmacokinetics. Initial antibiotic dose should be based on published volume of distribution and generally be at least the standard dose, as volume of distribution is usually unchanged or increased. Subsequent doses should be based on total clearance. Total clearance varies with the CRRT clearance which mainly depends on effluent flow rate, sieving coefficient/saturation coefficient. As antibiotic clearance by healthy kidneys is usually higher than clearance by CRRT, except for colistin, subsequent doses should generally be lower than given to patients without renal dysfunction. In the future therapeutic drug monitoring, together with sophisticated pharmacokinetic models taking into account the pharmacokinetic variability, may enable more appropriate individualized dosing.

How can we ensure effective antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients receiving different types of renal replacement therapy?

Determining appropriate antibiotic dosing for critically ill patients receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) is complex. Worldwide unstandardized and heterogeneous prescribing of RRT as well as altered patient physiology and pathogen susceptibility all cause drug disposition to be much different to that seen in non-critically ill patients. Significant changes to pharmacokinetic parameters, including volume of distribution and clearance, could be expected, in particular, for antibiotics that are hydrophilic with low plasma protein binding and that are usually primarily eliminated by the renal system. Antibiotic clearance is likely to be significantly increased when higher RRT intensities are used. The combined effect of these factors that alter antibiotic disposition is that non-standard dosing strategies should be considered to achieve therapeutic exposure. In particular, an aggressive early approach to dosing should be considered and this may include administration of a 'loading dose', to rapidly achieve therapeutic concentrations and maximally reduce the inoculum of the pathogen. This approach is particularly important given the pharmacokinetic changes in the critically ill as well as the increased likelihood of less susceptible pathogens. Dose individualization that applies knowledge of the RRT and patient factors causing altered pharmacokinetics remains the key approach for ensuring effective antibiotic therapy for these patients. Where possible, therapeutic drug monitoring should also be used to ensure more accurate therapy. A lack of pharmacokinetic data for antibiotics during the prolonged intermittent RRT and intermittent hemodialysis currently limits evidence-based antibiotic dose recommendations for these patients.

Amikacin pharmacokinetics during continuous veno-venous hemodialysis

Introduction

Little is known about the pharmacokinetics of amikacin during continuous renal replacement therapy.

Methods

This prospective observational study included patients admitted to an academic medical center who received amikacin therapy while on continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) and had at least two serum sample concentrations measured after first-dose administration. First-order pharmacokinetic parameters, patient characteristics, and CVVHD parameters were recorded.

Results

Fifteen patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) dose of amikacin and dialysate flow rate, based on adjusted body weight, were 14.1 mg/kg (11.7–17.3 mg/kg) and 23.9 mL/kg/h (19.0–29.5 mL/kg/h), respectively. This corresponded with a median C_max of 28.5 μg/mL (20.9–39.0 μg/mL). There was a significant correlation between clearance and dialytic dose (for every 1 L/h increase in dialysate flow rate, clearance rate increased by 23.6 mL/min [95% confidence interval 1.7–45.4 mL/min; P = 0.037]).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that amikacin dose and interval should be individualized for each patient on CVVHD based on first-dose pharmacokinetic assessment.