Roger C, Muller L, Wallis S C, Louart B, Saissi G, Lipman J, Lefrant J Y, Roberts J A
Service des réanimations, Pôle Anesthésie Réanimation Douleur Urgence, CHU Nîmes, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30 029 Nîmes cedex 9, France Equipe d'Accueil 2992, Faculté de Médecine de Nîmes, Université de Montpellier, Chemin du Carreau de Lanes, Nimes, France
Service des réanimations, Pôle Anesthésie Réanimation Douleur Urgence, CHU Nîmes, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30 029 Nîmes cedex 9, France Equipe d'Accueil 2992, Faculté de Médecine de Nîmes, Université de Montpellier, Chemin du Carreau de Lanes, Nimes, France.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Feb;71(2):464-70. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv349. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
Few data are available to guide linezolid dosing during renal replacement therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the population pharmacokinetics of linezolid during continuous venovenous haemofiltration (CVVHF, 30 mL/kg/h) and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF, 15 mL/kg/h + 15 mL/kg/h).
Patients requiring linezolid 600 mg iv every 12 h and CVVHF or CVVHDF were eligible for this prospective study. Seven blood samples were collected over one dosing interval and analysed by a validated chromatographic method. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken using Pmetrics. Monte Carlo simulations evaluated achievement of a pharmacodynamics target of an AUC from 0-24 h to MIC (AUC0-24/MIC) of 80.
Nine CVVHDF and eight CVVHF treatments were performed in 13 patients. Regimens of CVVHDF and CVVHF were similar. A two-compartment linear model best described the data. CVVHDF was associated with a 20.5% higher mean linezolid clearance than CVVHF, without statistical significance (P = 0.39). Increasing patient weight and decreasing SOFA score were associated with increasing linezolid clearance. The mean (SD) parameter estimates were: clearance (CL), 3.8 (2.2) L/h; volume of the central compartment, 26.5 (10.3) L; intercompartmental clearance constants from central to peripheral, 8.1 (12.1) L/h; and peripheral to central compartments, 3.6 (4.0) L/h. Achievement of pharmacodynamic targets was poor for an MIC of 2 mg/L with the studied dose.
During CVVHF and CVVHDF, there is profound pharmacokinetic variability of linezolid. Suboptimal achievement of therapeutic targets occurs at the EUCAST breakpoint MIC of 2 mg/L using 600 mg iv every 12 h.
在肾脏替代治疗期间,几乎没有数据可用于指导利奈唑胺的给药剂量。本研究的目的是比较利奈唑胺在持续静静脉血液滤过(CVVHF,30 mL/kg/h)和持续静静脉血液透析滤过(CVVHDF,15 mL/kg/h + 15 mL/kg/h)过程中的群体药代动力学。
需要每12小时静脉注射600 mg利奈唑胺且进行CVVHF或CVVHDF的患者符合本前瞻性研究的条件。在一个给药间隔内采集7份血样,并通过经过验证的色谱法进行分析。使用Pmetrics进行群体药代动力学分析。蒙特卡洛模拟评估了0至24小时血药浓度-时间曲线下面积与最低抑菌浓度之比(AUC0-24/MIC)达到80这一药效学目标的实现情况。
对13例患者进行了9次CVVHDF治疗和8次CVVHF治疗。CVVHDF和CVVHF方案相似。二室线性模型最能描述这些数据。CVVHDF的利奈唑胺平均清除率比CVVHF高20.5%,但无统计学意义(P = 0.39)。患者体重增加和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分降低与利奈唑胺清除率增加相关。平均(标准差)参数估计值为:清除率(CL),3.8(2.2)L/h;中央室容积,26.5(10.3)L;从中央室到外周室的室间清除常数,8.1(12.1)L/h;以及从外周室到中央室,3.6(4.0)L/h。对于最低抑菌浓度为2 mg/L的情况,使用所研究的剂量时,药效学目标的达成情况较差。
在CVVHF和CVVHDF期间,利奈唑胺存在显著的药代动力学变异性。使用每12小时静脉注射600 mg的剂量,在欧盟CAST折点最低抑菌浓度为2 mg/L时,治疗目标的达成情况欠佳。