The pharmacokinetics of piperacillin/tazobactam (4 g/0.5 g every 6 or 8 hours, by 20-minute intravenous infusion) were studied in 14 patients with acute renal failure who underwent continuous venovenous hemofiltration with AN69 membranes. Patients were grouped according to severity (CL(CR) < or =10 mL/min, 10 < CL(CR) < or =50 mL/min, and CL(CR) > 50 mL/min). A noncompartmental analysis was performed. The sieving coefficient (0.78 +/- 0.28) was similar to the unbound fraction (0.65 +/- 0.24) for tazobactam, but it was significantly different (0.34 +/- 0.25) from the unbound fraction (0.78 +/- 0.14) for piperacillin. Extracorporeal clearance was 37.0% +/- 28.8%, 12.7% +/- 12.6%, and 2.8% +/- 3.2% for piperacillin in each group and 62.5% +/- 44.9%, 35.4% +/- 17.0%, and 13.1% +/- 8.0% for tazobactam. No patients presented tazobactam accumulation. In patients with CL(CR) < 50 mL/min, t(%)ss >MIC90 values were 100% for a panel of 19 pathogens, but in those with CL(CR) > 50 mL/min, t(%)ss >MIC90 indexes were 55.5% and 16.6% for pathogens with MIC90 values of 32 and 64. The extracorporeal clearance of piperacillin/tazobactam is clinically significant in patients with CL(CR) > 50 mL/min, in which the risk of underdosing and clinical failure is important and extra doses are required.

Population pharmacokinetic models have been developed and validated for piperacillin and tazobactam. Based on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis, dosing recommendations are given considering the residual renal function of the patient and the MIC for the isolated bacteria.

Abstractof severe infections in critically ill patients, including those receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). The objective of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model of meropenem in critically ill patients undergoing CRRT. Patients and methods:A prospective, open-label study was conducted in 20 patients undergoing CRRT. Blood and dialysate-ultrafiltrate samples were obtained after administration of 500 mg, 1000 mg or 2000 mg of meropenem every 6 or 8 hours by intravenous infusion. The data were analysed under the population approach using NONMEM version V software. Age, bodyweight, dialysate plus ultrafiltrate flow, creatinine clearance (CLCR), the unbound drug fraction in plasma, the type of membrane, CRRT and the patient type (whether septic or severely polytraumatized) were the covariates studied. Results:The pharmacokinetics of meropenem in plasma were best described by a two-compartment model. CLCR was found to have a significant correlation with the apparent total clearance (CL) of the drug during the development of the covariate model. However, the influence of CLCR on CL differed between septic and polytraumatized patients (CL = 6.63 + 0.064 × CLCR for septic patients and CL = 6.63 + 0.72 × CLCR for polytraumatized patients). The volume of distribution of the central compartment (V1) was also dependent on the patient type, with values of 15.7 L for septic patients and 69.5 L for polytraumatized patients. The population clearance was 15 L/h, and the population apparent volume of distribution of the peripheral compartment was 19.8 L. From the base to the final model, the interindividual variabilities in CL and the V1 were significantly reduced. When computer simulations were carried out and efficacy indexes were calculated, it was shown that polytraumatized patients and septic patients with conserved renal function may not achieve adequate efficacy indexes to deal with specific infections. Continuous infusion of meropenem is recommended for critically septic patients and polytraumatized patients when pathogens with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of ≥4 mg/L are isolated. Infections caused by pathogens with an MIC of ≥8 mg/L should not be treated with meropenem in polytraumatized patients without or with moderate renal failure because excessive doses of meropenem would be necessary. Conclusion:A population pharmacokinetic model of meropenem in intensive care patients undergoing CRRT was developed and validated. CLCR and the patient type (whether septic or polytraumatized) were identified as significant covariates. The population pharmacokinetic model developed in the present study has been employed to recommend continuous infusion protocols in patients treated with CRRT. Backgroundfor >1 day for ≥20 h/day; and (iii) isolated or expected causative pathogen susceptible to meropenem. The guardians of all patients Meropenem is a carbapenem antibacterial with a wide spectrum provided written informed consent. Complete medical histories of activity, including Gram...

The pharmacokinetics of meropenem were characterized in 20 patients with different degrees of renal function who underwent continuous renal replacement therapy. Previously, no differences were detected in vitro in the removal of meropenem by continuous venovenous hemofiltration or continuous venovenous hemodialysis or when AN69 or polysulfone membranes were compared. In patients, no significant differences in the sieving coefficient or the saturation coefficient with the renal function were found, and the mean sieving coefficient/saturation coefficient value (0.80 +/- 0.12) was similar to the unbound fraction (0.79 +/- 0.08). An increase in total clearance and a decrease in elimination half-life were observed to the extent that the patient's creatinine clearance was higher. Likewise, the contribution of continuous renal replacement therapy to total clearance diminished in patients with less renal impairment. The results suggest that the renal function of the patient may influence meropenem pharmacokinetics during continuous renal replacement therapy. The lower trough plasma levels observed in nonrenal patients would not lead to adequate time during which serum drug concentrations are above the minimum inhibitory concentration values in many infections.

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of renal function, in particular the presence of augmented renal clearance (ARC), on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid in critically ill patients. The effect of continuous infusion on the probability of therapeutic success from a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) perspective was also evaluated. Methods: Seventeen patients received linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) as a 30-min infusion and 26 as a continuous infusion (50 mg/h). The PK parameters were calculated and the probability of PK/PD target attainment (PTA) was estimated by Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) for different doses administered by intermittent (600 mg every 12 h or 600 mg every 8 h) or continuous infusion (50 mg/h or 75 mg/h). Results: In patients without ARC, the standard dose was adequate to attain the PK/PD target. However, linezolid clearance was significantly higher in ARC patients, leading to sub-therapeutic concentrations. Continuous infusion (50 mg/h) provided concentrations !2 mg/l in 70% of the ARC patients. MCS revealed that concentrations !2 mg/l would be reached in >90% of patients receiving 75 mg/h. Conclusions: ARC increases linezolid clearance and leads to a high risk of underexposure with the standard dose. Continuous infusion increases the PTA, but an infusion rate of 75 mg/h should be considered to ensure concentrations !2 mg/ml.