Kozono Aki, Hiraki Yoichi, Adachi Rui, Nagano Masahisa, Inoue Daisuke, Tsuji Yasuhiro, Kamimura Hidetoshi, Karube Yoshiharu
Department of Pharmacy, National Hospital Organization Kumamoto Saisyunsou Hospital, 2659 Suya, Goushi City, Kumamoto, 861-1196, Japan.
Department of Pharmacy, National Hospital Organization Beppu Medical Center, 1473 Uchikamado, Beppu, Oita, 874-0011, Japan.
J Infect Chemother. 2016 May;22(5):314-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2016.01.024. Epub 2016 Feb 28.
We compared the predictive accuracy of TEIC concentrations (TEIC_conc) calculated using either serum cystatin C (CysC) or serum creatinine (SCr) and the population mean method using the mean population parameter of TEIC_conc for Japan. We also compared the predicted TEIC_conc to measured TEIC_conc. Creatinine clearance (CLCr) predicted using the Cockcroft-Gault (C&G) equation with SCr was 45.23 mL/min (interquartile range [IQR]: 32.12-58.28), and the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) predicted using the Hoek equation with CysC was 45.23 mL/min (IQR: 35.40-53.79). The root mean-squared prediction error (IQR) based on CLCr predicted using the C&G equation with SCr was 6.88 (3.80-9.96) μg/mL, and that based on GFR predicted using the Hoek equation with CysC was 6.72 (3.77-9.68) μg/mL. Predicted TEIC_conc did not differ significantly between the two methods. The predictive accuracy of the TEIC_conc using the Hoek equation with CysC was similar to that of CLCr using the C&G equation with SCr. These findings suggest that the predictive accuracy of the TEIC_conc using CLCr based on the G&G equation and SCr might be sufficient for the initial dose adjustment of TEIC. Given that we were unable to confirm that CysC is the optimal method for predicting TEIC_conc, the expensive measurement of CysC might not be necessary.
我们比较了使用血清胱抑素C(CysC)或血清肌酐(SCr)计算的TEIC浓度(TEIC_conc)以及使用日本TEIC_conc总体均值参数的总体均值法的预测准确性。我们还将预测的TEIC_conc与测量的TEIC_conc进行了比较。使用基于SCr的Cockcroft-Gault(C&G)方程预测的肌酐清除率(CLCr)为45.23 mL/分钟(四分位间距[IQR]:32.12 - 58.28),使用基于CysC的Hoek方程预测的肾小球滤过率(GFR)为45.23 mL/分钟(IQR:35.40 - 53.79)。基于使用基于SCr的C&G方程预测的CLCr的均方根预测误差(IQR)为6.88(3.80 - 9.96)μg/mL,基于使用基于CysC的Hoek方程预测的GFR的均方根预测误差为6.72(3.77 - 9.68)μg/mL。两种方法预测的TEIC_conc无显著差异。使用基于CysC的Hoek方程的TEIC_conc的预测准确性与使用基于SCr的C&G方程的CLCr的预测准确性相似。这些发现表明,基于G&G方程和SCr的CLCr用于预测TEIC_conc的准确性可能足以用于TEIC的初始剂量调整。鉴于我们无法确认CysC是预测TEIC_conc的最佳方法,可能无需进行昂贵的CysC测量。