Taubert Max, Zander Johannes, Frechen Sebastian, Scharf Christina, Frey Lorenz, Vogeser Michael, Fuhr Uwe, Zoller Michael
Department I of Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Hospital of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Aug 1;72(8):2304-2310. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx149.
Insufficient linezolid levels, which are associated with a poorer outcome, are often observed in ICU patients who receive standard dosing. Although strategies to overcome these insufficient levels have been discussed, appropriate alternative dosing regimens remain to be identified.
Various infusion regimens (1200-3600 mg/day; q6h, q8h, q12h and continuous) were simulated in 67 000 ICU patients. The probability of attaining pharmacodynamic targets ( T >MIC ≥85%, AUC/MIC ≥100, cumulative fraction of response for Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus spp., PTA for an MIC of 0.5-4 mg/L) as well as the avoidance of toxic concentrations and concentrations constantly below the MIC (lack of antibiotic effect) or inside a mutant selection window (resistance development) were evaluated.
Best target attainment according to T >MIC was observed for continuous infusions, followed by q6h, q8h and q12h. A substantially reduced target attainment was observed in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In patients without ARDS, 1200 mg/day was insufficient irrespective of the regimen, while a dose of 1400 mg/day administered q6h or by continuous infusions provided an acceptable target attainment (e.g. cumulative fraction of response with regards to T >MIC ≥93%). Higher rates of potentially toxic trough concentrations (28% versus 12%) and concentrations constantly inside the mutant selection window (15% versus <0.1%) were observed with continuous infusions compared with q6h infusions (1400 mg/day, patients without ARDS).
Irrespective of the regimen, 1200 mg/day linezolid might be insufficient for the treatment of ICU patients. Patients without ARDS might particularly benefit from q6h infusions with increased daily doses (e.g. 1400 mg/day).
在接受标准剂量利奈唑胺治疗的重症监护病房(ICU)患者中,常观察到利奈唑胺血药浓度不足,而这与较差的治疗结果相关。尽管已经讨论了克服这些不足浓度的策略,但仍有待确定合适的替代给药方案。
在67000例ICU患者中模拟了各种输注方案(1200 - 3600毫克/天;每6小时一次、每8小时一次、每12小时一次和持续输注)。评估达到药效学目标的概率(T>MIC≥85%、AUC/MIC≥100、金黄色葡萄球菌和肠球菌属的累积反应分数、MIC为0.5 - 4毫克/升时的达标概率)以及避免出现毒性浓度和持续低于MIC的浓度(缺乏抗生素效应)或处于突变选择窗内(耐药性发展)的情况。
持续输注达到T>MIC的最佳目标达成率最高,其次是每6小时一次、每8小时一次和每12小时一次。在急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者中观察到目标达成率大幅降低。在无ARDS的患者中,无论采用何种方案,1200毫克/天的剂量均不足,而每6小时一次或持续输注1400毫克/天的剂量可提供可接受的目标达成率(例如,关于T>MIC的累积反应分数≥93%)。与每6小时一次输注(1400毫克/天,无ARDS患者)相比,持续输注观察到更高的潜在毒性谷浓度发生率(28%对12%)和持续处于突变选择窗内的浓度发生率(15%对<0.1%)。
无论采用何种方案,1200毫克/天的利奈唑胺可能不足以治疗ICU患者。无ARDS的患者可能特别受益于增加每日剂量(例如1400毫克/天)的每6小时一次输注。