Kasiakou Sofia K, Lawrence Kenneth R, Choulis Nicolaos, Falagas Matthew E
Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), and Alfa HealthCare, Athens, Greece.
Drugs. 2005;65(17):2499-511. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200565170-00006.
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.
我们进行了一项随机临床试验的系统评价,以评估各种抗菌药物静脉持续给药与间歇给药方式的比较药代动力学和药效学特性。数据来源于PubMed(1950年1月至2005年1月)、《现刊目次》、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库以及相关文章和综述中的参考文献。本系统评价纳入了17项随机临床试验,这些试验比较了相同抗菌方案的静脉持续给药与间歇给药,并研究了药代动力学和药效学特性。我们回顾了有关临床背景、参与者数量、所用抗菌药物和剂量的数据,以及最大血清浓度(Cmax)、谷血清浓度(Cmin)、稳态或平台血清浓度(Css)、浓度-时间曲线下面积(AUC)、高于最低抑菌浓度(MIC)的时间[T>MIC]、AUC:MIC、消除速率常数、消除半衰期、分布容积和全身清除率。在所有符合条件的研究中,间歇给药抗菌药物的平均Cmax高于相同抗菌药物持续输注所达到的Css(Cmax平均比Css高5.5倍,范围为1.9-11.2)。Css平均比间歇给药抗菌药物的Cmin高5.8倍(范围为1.2-15.6)。在六项研究中的三项中,持续接受抗菌药物治疗的患者体内药物浓度高于致病菌MIC的时间更长。总之,所回顾的数据表明,从药效学角度来看,对于所研究的抗菌药物,至少在治疗对其MIC值较高的细菌时,静脉持续输注具有时间依赖性杀菌作用的抗菌药物似乎优于间歇静脉给药。