Eum Seenae, Bergsbaken Robert L, Harvey Craig L, Warren J Bryan, Rotschafer John C
Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Department of Lab Microbiology, Regions Hospital, Saint Paul, MN 55101, USA.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2016 Sep 27;5(4):34. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics5040034.
This study demonstrated a statistically significant difference in vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for between a common automated system (Vitek 2) and the E-test method in patients with bloodstream infections. At an area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC) threshold of 400 mg∙h/L, we would have reached the current Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP)/Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) guideline suggested AUC/MIC target in almost 100% of patients while using the Vitek 2 MIC data; however, we could only generate 40% target attainment while using E-test MIC data ( < 0.0001). An AUC of 450 mg∙h/L or greater was required to achieve 100% target attainment using either Vitek 2 or E-test MIC results.
本研究表明,在血流感染患者中,常见的自动化系统(Vitek 2)与E-test方法测定的万古霉素最低抑菌浓度(MIC)存在统计学显著差异。在血清浓度-时间曲线(AUC)阈值为400mg∙h/L时,使用Vitek 2的MIC数据,几乎100%的患者可达到美国传染病学会(IDSA)/美国卫生系统药师协会(ASHP)/传染病药师协会(SIDP)当前指南建议的AUC/MIC目标;然而,使用E-test的MIC数据时,仅40%的患者能达到目标(<0.0001)。无论使用Vitek 2还是E-test的MIC结果,要达到100%的目标达成率,AUC需达到450mg∙h/L或更高。