Comment: serum concentrations of cefuroxime after continuous infusion in coronary bypass graft patients

Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of severe acute infections

BACKGROUND

Intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics are indicated for the treatment of severe infections. However, the emergence of infections caused by multi-drug resistant organisms in conjunction with a lack of novel antibiotics has prompted the investigation of alternative dosing strategies to improve clinical efficacy and tolerability. To optimise pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic antibiotic parameters, continuous antibiotic infusions have been compared to traditional intermittent antibiotic infusions.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous intravenous administration of concentration-dependent and time-dependent antibiotics to traditional intermittent intravenous administration in adults with severe acute bacterial infections.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched in September 2012: The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). The reference lists of all relevant material, the Internet and the trials registry www.clinicaltrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in adults with a bacterial infection requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy comparing continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics were included. Both time-dependent and concentration-dependent antibiotics were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three independent authors performed data extraction for the included studies. All data was cross-checked and disagreements resolved by consensus. An intention to treat analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria with a combined total of over 1,600 patients. The majority of included studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias with regard to randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, management of incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential threats to validity. No studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for all methodological quality items assessed. There were no differences in all-cause mortality (n=1241, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.20, p=0.45), infection recurrence (n=398, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 - 4.19, p=0.76), clinical cure (n=975, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 - 1.08, p=0.98), and superinfection post-therapy (n=813, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.60 - 1.94, p=0.79). There were no differences in safety outcomes including adverse events (n=575, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 - 1.12, p=0.63), serious adverse events (n=871, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 - 2.30, p=0.26), and withdrawal due to adverse events (n=871, RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.52 - 7.95, p=0.31). A difference was observed in the subgroup analyses of clinical cure in septic versus non-septic patients, where intermittent antibiotic infusions were favoured for clinical cure in septic patients. However, this effect was not consistent between random-effects and fixed-effects analyses. No differences were found in sensitivity analyses conducted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in mortality, infection recurrence, clinical cure, superinfection post-therapy, and safety outcomes when comparing continuous infusions of intravenous antibiotics to traditional intermittent infusions of antibiotics. However, the wide confidence intervals suggest that beneficial or harmful effects cannot be ruled out for all outcomes. Therefore, the current evidence is insufficient to recommend the widespread adoption of continuous infusion antibiotics in the place of intermittent infusions of antibiotics. Further large prospective randomised trials, with consistent and complete reporting of clinical outcome measures, conducted with concurrent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies in special populations are required to determine whether adoption of continuous antibiotic infusions is warranted in specific circumstances.

Switching from brand-name to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review

Generic medications do not undergo the rigorous approval process required of original medications. Their effectiveness and safety is expected to be equal to that of their more expensive counterparts. However, several case reports and studies describe clinical deterioration and decreased tolerability with generic substitution. Pubmed was searched from January 1, 1974 to March 1, 2010. The MeSH term "generic, drugs" was combined with "anticonvulsants," "mood stabilizers," "lithium," "antidepressants," "antipsychotics," "anxiolytics," and "benzodiazepines." Additional articles were obtained by searching the bibliographies of relevant references. Articles in English, French, or Spanish were considered if they discussed clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name medications, generic substitution, or issues about effectiveness, tolerability, compliance, or economics encountered with generics. Clinical deterioration, adverse effects, and changes in pharmacokinetics are described with generic substitution of several anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers (carbamazepine, valproate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, lithium), antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, bupropion), antipsychotics (risperidone, clozapine), and anxiolytics (clonazepam, alprazolam). Generics do not always lead to the anticipated monetary savings and also raise compliance issues. Although the review is limited by publication bias and heterogeneity of the studies in the literature, we believe there is enough concern to advise generic switching on an individual basis with close monitoring throughout the transition. Health professionals should be aware of the stakes around generic substitution especially when health economics promote universal use of generics.