PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Meropenem Dosing in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis Receiving High-Volume Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration ▿  
Use of high ultrafiltrate flow rates with continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVHF) in critically ill patients is an emerging setting, for which there are few data to guide drug dosing. The objectives of this study were, firstly, to investigate the pharmacokinetics of meropenem in critically ill patients with severe sepsis who are receiving high-volume CVVHF with high-volume exchanges (≥4 liters/h); secondly, to determine whether standard dosing regimens (1,000 mg intravenously [i.v.] every 8 h) are sufficient for treatment of less susceptible organisms such as Burkholderia pseudomallei (MIC, 4 mg/liter); and, finally, to compare the clearances observed in this study with data from previous studies using lower-volume exchanges (1 to 2 liters/h). We recruited 10 eligible patients and collected serial pre- and postfilter blood samples and ultrafiltrate and urine samples. A noncompartmental method was used to determine meropenem pharmacokinetics. The cohort had a median age of 56.6 years, a median weight of 70 kg, and a median APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) score of 25. The median (interquartile range) values for meropenem were as follows: terminal elimination half-life, 4.3 h (2.9 to 6.0); terminal volume of distribution, 0.2 liters/kg (0.2 to 0.3); trough concentration, 7.7 mg/liter (6.2 to 12.9); total clearance, 6.0 liters/h (5.2 to 6.2); hemofiltration clearance, 3.5 liters/h (3.4 to 3.9). In comparing the meropenem clearance here with those in previous studies, ultrafiltration flow rate was found to be the parameter that accounted for the differences in clearance of meropenem (R2 = 0.89). In conclusion, high-volume CVVHF causes significant clearance of meropenem, necessitating steady-state doses of 1,000 mg every 8 h to maintain sufficient concentrations to treat less susceptible organisms such as B. pseudomallei.
doi:10.1128/AAC.01582-09
PMCID: PMC2897321  PMID: 20479205
2.  Open randomized study of cefepime versus piperacillin-gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. 
An open-label randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime versus piperacillin plus gentamicin (P+G) given intravenously for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with underlying malignancy was conducted at two oncology centers. Over a 30-month period 111 patients were enrolled and 99 patients were found to be suitable for evaluation. At the 72-h time of evaluation, cefepime monotherapy and P+G combination therapy produced comparable clinical response rates (78% for both). P+G and cefepime produced comparable response rates in microbiologically documented (78 versus 71%), clinically documented (100 versus 100%), and possible (75 versus 79%) infections. The P+G and cefepime treatments achieved comparable microbiological eradication of gram-negative (100 versus 71%) (P = 0.09) and gram-positive (44 versus 70%) (P = 0.37) organisms. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of superinfection between the groups; however, more superinfections of fungal origin were noted in the P+G group. Cefepime was demonstrated to be an effective and safe treatment for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with malignancies, and its lack of nephrotoxicity compared to P+G was noteworthy. Cefepime appears to be a candidate for monotherapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.
PMCID: PMC163989  PMID: 9257745
3.  Attenuation of antibody response to acute pyelonephritis by treatment with antibiotics. 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy  1991;35(11):2340-2344.
While acute pyelonephritis is known to elicit an antibody response, it is also known that a patient who has had pyelonephritis once is susceptible to recurrent renal infection. Using our experimental model of pyelonephritis in the monkey, we tested whether antibiotic therapy of the acute disease would affect the antibody response. We found that it did, because antibiotic therapy beginning 72 h after bacterial inoculation attenuated the antibody response so that rechallenge 3 months later produced acute pyelonephritis and prolonged bacteriuria. The animals with untreated infection had an antibody response that lasted a sufficient period of time to prevent acute pyelonephritis after renal challenge. We have confirmed that antibody titers against P fimbriae are protective, and to a degree, this protective effect may be abrogated by antibiotic therapy.
PMCID: PMC245382  PMID: 1804007

Results 1-3 (3)