Burgess Sarah V, Mabasa Vincent H, Chow Ivy, Ensom Mary H H
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Burnaby Hospital, BC, Canada
Ann Pharmacother. 2015 Mar;49(3):311-22. doi: 10.1177/1060028014564179. Epub 2015 Jan 9.
To perform a qualitative systematic review of the evidence comparing traditional with prolonged intermittent or continuous infusions of cefepime based on clinical and pharmacodynamic outcomes.
PubMed (1946 to October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to October 2014), CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to October 2014) were searched using the terms cefepime, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, drug administration, intravenous infusions, intravenous drug administration, continuous infusion, extended infusion, and intermittent therapy. Reference lists from relevant materials were reviewed.
Articles evaluating administration regimens of cefepime, one of which included the traditional, manufacturer-recommended 0.5-hour infusion and the other a prolonged or continuous infusion were included. Prespecified clinical outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical cure, and adverse events. The primary pharmacodynamic outcome was percentage time of unbound drug concentration remaining above the minimum inhibitory concentration.
In all, 18 studies were included; 6 studies assessed clinical outcomes, and 12 assessed pharmacodynamic outcomes. Prolonged or continuous infusions of cefepime achieved the pharmacodynamic targets more often than traditional infusions. The association of improved clinical outcomes with prolonged or continuous infusions is unclear. All-cause mortality was significantly decreased with the use of a prolonged cefepime infusion in a retrospective study. Two prospective, randomized studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in mortality between prolonged and intermittent infusions.
The available literature on prolonged and continuous infusions of cefepime demonstrated an improved achievement of pharmacodynamic targets; however, the effect on clinical outcomes is inconclusive. Well-designed prospective studies are required to determine optimal dosing and administration strategies.
基于临床和药效学结果,对头孢吡肟传统输注方式与延长间歇性或持续输注方式进行比较的证据进行定性系统评价。
使用头孢吡肟、药代动力学、药效学、药物给药、静脉输注、静脉给药、持续输注、延长输注和间歇治疗等检索词,检索了PubMed(1946年至2014年10月)、EMBASE(1980年至2014年10月)、CENTRAL、Cochrane系统评价数据库、科学引文索引和国际药学文摘(1970年至2014年10月)。对相关材料的参考文献列表进行了审查。
纳入评估头孢吡肟给药方案的文章,其中一个方案包括传统的、制造商推荐的0.5小时输注,另一个方案为延长或持续输注。预先设定的感兴趣的临床结果包括全因死亡率、住院时间、临床治愈和不良事件。主要药效学结果是游离药物浓度高于最低抑菌浓度的时间百分比。
共纳入18项研究;6项研究评估临床结果,12项评估药效学结果。头孢吡肟的延长或持续输注比传统输注更常达到药效学目标。延长或持续输注与改善临床结果之间的关联尚不清楚。在一项回顾性研究中,延长头孢吡肟输注可显著降低全因死亡率。两项前瞻性随机研究表明,延长输注与间歇输注在死亡率方面无统计学显著差异。
关于头孢吡肟延长和持续输注的现有文献表明,药效学目标的实现有所改善;然而,对临床结果的影响尚无定论。需要设计良好的前瞻性研究来确定最佳给药剂量和给药策略。