Roberts Darren M, Ranganathan Dwarakanathan, Wallis Steven C, Varghese Julie M, Kark Adrian, Lipman Jeffrey, Roberts Jason A
Burns, Trauma & Critical Care Research Centre, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Butterfield Street, Herston, Queensland, Australia Medical School, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia
Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Perit Dial Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;36(4):415-20. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2015.00008. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
♦
The standard treatment of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-associated peritonitis (PD-peritonitis) is intraperitoneal (IP) administration of antibiotics. Only limited data on the pharmacokinetics and appropriateness of contemporary dose recommendations of IP cefalothin and cefazolin exist. The aim of this study was to describe the pharmacokinetics of IP cefalothin and cefazolin in patients treated for PD-peritonitis. ♦
As per international guidelines, IP cefalothin or cefazolin 15 mg/kg once daily was dosed with gentamicin in a 6-hour dwell to patients with PD-peritonitis during routine care. Serial plasma and PD effluent samples were collected over the first 24 hours of therapy. Antibiotic concentrations were quantified using a validated chromatographic method with pharmacokinetic analysis performed using a non-compartmental approach. ♦
Nineteen patients were included (cefalothin n = 8, cefazolin n = 11). The median bioavailability for both antibiotics exceeded 92%, but other pharmacokinetic parameters varied markedly between antibiotics. Both antibiotics achieved high PD effluent concentrations throughout the antibiotic dwell. Cefazolin had a smaller volume of distribution compared with cefalothin (14 vs 40 L, p = 0.003). The median trough total plasma antibiotic concentration for cefazolin and cefalothin during the dwell differed (plasma 56 vs 13 mg/L, p < 0.0001) despite a similar concentration in PD effluent (37 vs 38 mg/L, p = 0.58). Lower antibiotic concentrations were noted during PD dwells not containing antibiotic, particularly cefalothin, which was frequently undetectable in plasma and PD effluent. The median duration that the unbound antibiotic concentration was above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was approximately 13% (plasma) and 25% (IP) for cefalothin, and 100% (plasma and IP) for cefazolin, of the dosing interval. ♦
When IP cefalothin or cefazolin is allowed to dwell for 6 hours, sufficient PD effluent concentrations are present for common pathogens during this time. However, with once-daily IP dosing, in contrast to cefazolin, there is a risk of subtherapeutic plasma and PD effluent cefalothin concentrations, so more frequent dosing may be required.
♦
腹膜透析(PD)相关腹膜炎(PD-腹膜炎)的标准治疗方法是腹腔内(IP)给予抗生素。目前关于IP头孢噻吩和头孢唑林的药代动力学以及当代剂量推荐的适用性的数据有限。本研究的目的是描述IP头孢噻吩和头孢唑林在接受PD-腹膜炎治疗的患者中的药代动力学。♦
根据国际指南,在常规护理期间,将IP头孢噻吩或头孢唑林15mg/kg每日一次与庆大霉素一起在6小时的驻留期内给予PD-腹膜炎患者。在治疗的前24小时内收集系列血浆和PD流出液样本。使用经过验证的色谱方法对抗生素浓度进行定量,并使用非房室方法进行药代动力学分析。♦
纳入19例患者(头孢噻吩组n = 8,头孢唑林组n = 11)。两种抗生素的中位生物利用度均超过92%,但其他药代动力学参数在两种抗生素之间有显著差异。在整个抗生素驻留期内,两种抗生素在PD流出液中均达到高浓度。与头孢噻吩相比,头孢唑林的分布容积较小(14 vs 40L,p = 0.003)。尽管在PD流出液中的浓度相似(37 vs 38mg/L,p = 0.58),但在驻留期内头孢唑林和头孢噻吩的血浆抗生素总谷浓度中位数不同(血浆中分别为56 vs 13mg/L,p < 0.0001)。在不含有抗生素的PD驻留期内观察到较低的抗生素浓度,尤其是头孢噻吩,其在血浆和PD流出液中经常检测不到。头孢噻吩未结合抗生素浓度高于最低抑菌浓度(MIC)的中位持续时间约为给药间隔的13%(血浆)和25%(IP),而头孢唑林为100%(血浆和IP)。♦
当IP头孢噻吩或头孢唑林驻留6小时时,在此期间对于常见病原体存在足够的PD流出液浓度。然而,与头孢唑林相比,每日一次的IP给药,头孢噻吩存在血浆和PD流出液浓度低于治疗水平的风险,因此可能需要更频繁给药。