Jin Yuhong, Mao Haiyan, Liu Bingyang, Zhou Fen, Yang Junjie, Xu Lei, Tong Jingtao, Huang Chen, Ding Yi
Department of Intensive Care, Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo Medical Center, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Department of Radiotherapy, Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo Medical Center, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Infect Drug Resist. 2020 Nov 19;13:4155-4166. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S284754. eCollection 2020.
There is a paucity of published data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of imipenem (IPM) and piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) dosing regimens in the treatment of septic patients acquiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).
Critically-ill patients were grouped into short-stay and long-stay intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Pathogens were isolated from bloodstream infections in these patients. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value was determined by agar dilution method. Population PK models were introduced in this study, and differences in the likelihood of achieving efficacious and toxic exposures of IPM and PT for critically-ill patients were assessed.
A total of 86 bloodstream infection associated isolates were collected, and the MIC and MIC for short-stay ICU patients were 0.5/4 mg/L and 32/128 mg/L, respectively. IMP 0.5g q8h reached 90% probability of target attainment (PTA) against isolates with MICs ≤2 mg/L and was recommended to empirically treat short-stay ICU patients during CRRT based on the target of 40% ƒT>MIC. However, based on a more aggressive target of 100% ƒT>MIC, all the simulated IMP regimens except for IMP 1g q6h failed to achieve >80% cumulative fraction of response (CFR) in such patients. Unfortunately, the risk of drug-related toxicity for IMP 1g q6h was relatively high (50-85%). For PT, even the regimen of 4/0.5g q6h failed to provide sufficient antimicrobial exposure in short-stay ICU patients acquiring CRRT.
No dose adjustment was required for the conventional IMP and PT regimens in the critically-ill population acquiring CRRT. Empirical treatment of IMP 0.5g q8h/q6h, not for PT, may provide sufficient antimicrobial exposure for short-stay ICU patients during CRRT. PT should be used in the knowledge of MIC results.
目前公开的数据较少,难以评估亚胺培南(IPM)和哌拉西林 - 他唑巴坦(PT)给药方案在接受持续肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)的脓毒症患者治疗中的疗效和安全性。
危重症患者被分为短期和长期入住重症监护病房(ICU)的患者。从这些患者的血流感染中分离出病原体。通过琼脂稀释法测定最低抑菌浓度(MIC)值。本研究引入群体药代动力学模型,评估危重症患者使用IPM和PT达到有效暴露和毒性暴露可能性的差异。
共收集到86株与血流感染相关的分离株,短期入住ICU患者的MIC和MIC分别为0.5/4 mg/L和32/128 mg/L。对于MIC≤2 mg/L的分离株,亚胺培南0.5g q8h达到目标达标概率(PTA)的90%,基于40%ƒT>MIC的目标,建议在CRRT期间对短期入住ICU的患者进行经验性治疗。然而,基于更严格的100%ƒT>MIC目标,除亚胺培南1g q6h外,所有模拟的亚胺培南给药方案在这类患者中均未达到>80%的累积反应分数(CFR)。不幸的是,亚胺培南1g q6h的药物相关毒性风险相对较高(50 - 85%)。对于PT,即使是4/0.5g q6h的给药方案,在接受CRRT的短期入住ICU患者中也未能提供足够的抗菌暴露。
在接受CRRT的危重症人群中,传统的IPM和PT给药方案无需调整剂量。对于短期入住ICU的患者,在CRRT期间,亚胺培南0.5g q8h/q6h的经验性治疗(而非PT)可能提供足够的抗菌暴露。PT应根据MIC结果使用。