cThe use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to optimize beta-lactam dosing in critically ill patients is growing in popularity, although there are limited data describing the potential impact of altered protein binding on achievement of target concentrations. The aim of this study was to compare the measured unbound concentration to the unbound concentration predicted from published protein binding values for seven beta-lactams using data from blood samples obtained from critically ill patients. From 161 eligible patients, we obtained 228 and 220 plasma samples at the midpoint of the dosing interval and trough, respectively, for ceftriaxone, cefazolin, meropenem, piperacillin, ampicillin, benzylpenicillin, and flucloxacillin. The total and unbound beta-lactam concentrations were measured using validated methods. Variabilities in both unbound and total concentrations were marked for all antibiotics, with significant differences being present between measured and predicted unbound concentrations for ceftriaxone and for flucloxacillin at the mid-dosing interval (P < 0.05). The predictive performance for calculating unbound concentrations using published protein binding values was poor, with bias for overprediction of unbound concentrations for ceftriaxone (83.3%), flucloxacillin (56.8%), and benzylpenicillin (25%) and underprediction for meropenem (12.1%). Linear correlations between the measured total and unbound concentrations were observed for all beta-lactams (R 2 ‫؍‬ 0.81 to 1.00; P < 0.05) except ceftriaxone and flucloxacillin. The percent protein binding of flucloxacillin and the plasma albumin concentration were also found to be linearly correlated (R 2 ‫؍‬ 0.776; P < 0.01). In conclusion, significant differences between measured and predicted unbound drug concentrations were found only for the highly protein-bound beta-lactams ceftriaxone and flucloxacillin. However, direct measurement of unbound drug in research and clinical practice is suggested for selected beta-lactams.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health crisis. Antimicrobial Stewardship involves adopting systematic measures to optimize antimicrobial use, decrease unnecessary antimicrobial exposure and to decrease the emergence and spread of resistance. Low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a disproportionate burden of antimicrobial resistance and also face challenges related to resource availability. Although challenges exist, the World Health Organization has created a practical toolkit for developing Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) that will be summarized in this article.

No abstract

Purpose: The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation. Methods: Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure. Results: Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60-1.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14-1.64). Conclusion: ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely.

Augmented renal clearance (ARC) refers to increased solute elimination by the kidneys. ARC has considerable implications for altered drug concentrations. The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of ARC in a select cohort of patients admitted to a Malaysian intensive care unit (ICU) and to compare measured and calculated creatinine clearances in this group. Patients with an expected ICU stay of >24 hours plus an admission serum creatinine concentration <120 μmol/l, were enrolled from May to July 2013. Twenty-four hour urinary collections and serum creatinine concentrations were used to measure creatinine clearance. A total of 49 patients were included, with a median age of 34 years. Most study participants were male and admitted after trauma. Thirty-nine percent were found to have ARC. These patients were more commonly admitted in emergency ( P=0.03), although no other covariants were identified as predicting ARC, likely due to the inclusion criteria and the study being under-powered. Significant imprecision was demonstrated when comparing calculated Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (Crcl) and measured Crcl. Bias was larger in ARC patients, with Cockcroft-Gault Crcl being significantly lower than measured Crcl ( P <0.01) and demonstrating poor correlation (rs=-0.04). In conclusion, critically ill patients with ‘normal’ serum creatinine concentrations have varied Crcl. Many are at risk of ARC, which may necessitate individualised drug dosing. Furthermore, significant bias and imprecision between calculated and measured Crcl exists, suggesting clinicians should carefully consider which method they employ in assessing renal function.