Meagher Alison K, Forrest Alan, Rayner Craig R, Birmingham Mary C, Schentag Jerome J
CPL Associates, LLC, Amherst, New York, USA.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003 Feb;47(2):548-53. doi: 10.1128/AAC.47.2.548-553.2003.
Data obtained from 318 adult patients treated under the linezolid compassionate-use protocol were used to develop a population model of the pharmacokinetics of intravenous and oral linezolid. All of the patients received 600 mg of linezolid every 12 h, intravenously and/or orally. Blood samples (2 to 10 per patient; median, 4) were obtained and assayed for linezolid by high-performance liquid chromatography. These data and patient covariates were modeled by iterative two-stage analysis, and model discrimination was done by Akaike's information criterion. Of the patient covariates considered (age, sex, ideal body weight, baseline serum albumin, hepatic or renal dysfunction, underlying malignancy, organ transplantation, surgical status, global severity of illness, site of infection, route of administration, and location of care [intensive-care unit, general floor, or outpatient]), only normalized creatinine clearance (CL(CR)) and body weight explained significant portions of the variance and were incorporated into the pharmacokinetic model. The final model included central and peripheral compartments with parallel capacity-limited (nonrenal) and first-order (renal [CL(R)]) clearances. Volumes and clearances were normalized to the ideal body weight, and CL(R) was modeled as proportional to CL(CR). Compared to previously studied adult volunteers, intrinsic clearance was approximately 60% higher and the maximum rate of metabolism was twice as high in these debilitated patients, resulting in lower area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) values (P < 0.001). The derived 24-h AUC, averaged over the first 7 days of treatment, ranged between 57 and 871 (median, 191) micro g/ml. 24 h. Despite these variations, linezolid provided high rates of clinical cure, as well as microbiological success, in the patients treated in the compassionate-use program. The mechanism(s) of these pharmacokinetic differences is unknown and requires further mechanistic study.
从318例接受利奈唑胺同情用药方案治疗的成年患者中获取的数据,用于建立静脉注射和口服利奈唑胺的群体药代动力学模型。所有患者每12小时接受600mg利奈唑胺,静脉注射和/或口服。采集血样(每位患者2至10份;中位数为4份),并通过高效液相色谱法测定利奈唑胺。这些数据和患者协变量通过迭代两阶段分析进行建模,模型判别采用赤池信息准则。在考虑的患者协变量中(年龄、性别、理想体重、基线血清白蛋白、肝或肾功能不全、潜在恶性肿瘤、器官移植、手术状态、疾病总体严重程度、感染部位、给药途径和护理地点[重症监护病房、普通病房或门诊]),只有标准化肌酐清除率(CL(CR))和体重解释了大部分变异,并被纳入药代动力学模型。最终模型包括中央室和外周室,具有平行的容量限制(非肾)和一级(肾[CL(R)])清除率。体积和清除率按理想体重进行标准化,CL(R)建模为与CL(CR)成比例。与先前研究的成年志愿者相比,这些虚弱患者的内在清除率高约60%,最大代谢率高两倍,导致时间-浓度曲线下面积(AUC)值较低(P<0.001)。治疗前7天的平均24小时AUC在57至871(中位数为191)μg/ml之间。24小时。尽管存在这些差异,但在同情用药项目中治疗的患者中,利奈唑胺提供了较高的临床治愈率以及微生物学成功率。这些药代动力学差异的机制尚不清楚,需要进一步的机制研究。