Hui Ligia-Ancuța, Bodolea Constantin, Popa Adina, Vlase Ana-Maria, Hirișcău Elisabeta Ioana, Vlase Laurian
Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Iuliu Hatieganu", 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
ICU Department, University Clinical Municipal Hospital, 400139 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2024 Oct 11;13(10):961. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13100961.
Linezolid has been found to have considerable interindividual variability, especially in critically ill patients, which can lead to suboptimal plasma concentration. To overcome this shortcoming, several solutions have been proposed. These include using loading dose, higher maintenance doses, and dose stratification according to the patient's particularities, therapeutic drug monitoring, and drug administration via continuous infusion (CI) instead of intermittent infusion (II). In the present study, we aim to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of linezolid after administration as II versus CI to critically ill patients.
In a prospective study conducted in an intensive care unit, we compared the same two daily doses of linezolid administered via II versus CI. The serum concentration was measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices for efficacy chosen were area under the concentration-time curve at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration over 80 (AUC24-48/MIC > 80).
Greater serum concentration variability was observed in the II group than in the CI group. The %T > MIC > 80% was achieved for MICs of 1 and 2 µg/mL 100% of the time, whereas for the II group, this was 93% and 73%, respectively. AUC24-48/MIC > 80 was reached in 100% of cases in the CI group compared with 87% in the II group for a MIC of 1 µg/mL.
The two infusion methods may be used comparably, but utilizing CI as an alternative to II may have potential benefits, including avoiding periods of suboptimal concentrations, which may enhance safety profiles and clinical outcomes. Considering the relatively few studies performed on linezolid to date, which are increasing in number, the results of the present study may be of interest.
已发现利奈唑胺存在显著的个体间差异,尤其是在危重症患者中,这可能导致血浆浓度未达最佳水平。为克服这一缺点,已提出多种解决方案。这些方案包括使用负荷剂量、更高的维持剂量、根据患者具体情况进行剂量分层、治疗药物监测以及通过持续输注(CI)而非间歇输注(II)给药。在本研究中,我们旨在比较危重症患者接受II和CI给药后利奈唑胺的药代动力学(PK)参数。
在一家重症监护病房进行的前瞻性研究中,我们比较了通过II和CI给予相同每日剂量的利奈唑胺。测量血清浓度并计算药代动力学参数。选择的疗效药代动力学/药效学(PK/PD)指标是稳态浓度-时间曲线下面积除以80以上的最低抑菌浓度(AUC24 - 48/MIC > 80)。
II组观察到的血清浓度变异性大于CI组。对于1和2 μg/mL的MIC,100%的时间达到%T > MIC > 80%,而对于II组,分别为93%和73%。对于1 μg/mL的MIC,CI组100%的病例达到AUC24 - 48/MIC > 80,而II组为87%。
两种输注方法的使用可能相当,但使用CI替代II可能具有潜在益处,包括避免浓度未达最佳水平的时期,这可能提高安全性和临床结局。考虑到迄今为止对利奈唑胺进行的研究相对较少,且数量在增加,本研究结果可能会受到关注。