4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Pharmacodynamics of intermittent and continuous infusion piperacillin/tazobactam and cefepime against extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 114-119

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.06.004

Keywords

pharmacodynamics; piperacillin/tazobactam; cefepime; extended-spectrum beta-lactamase

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The pharmacodynamics of piperacillin/tazobactam and cefepime were evaluated against extended-spectrum beta-lactatnase (ESBL)-producing organisms. Ten thousand patients were simulated based on ESBL minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) from our laboratory (N=39) and on pharmacokinetic data from peer-reviewed literature. The desired proportion of the dosing interval that the concentration remains above the MIC (%T > MIC) for the intermittent bolus regimens was >= 40% for piperacillin/tazobactam and >= 60% for cefepime. The desired C-ss/MIC ratio (where C is the concentration at steady state) was >= 2 for all continuous infusion (CI) regimens. MIC50, MIC90, and %S were, respectively, 64/4 mu g/mL, 1024/4 mu g/mL and 33% for piperacillin/tazobactam and 8 mu g/mL, 16 mu g/mL and 0% for cefepime. For piperacillin/tazobactam, 3.375 g every 4 h (q4h) achieved the highest probability of target attainment (43%), followed by 135 g CI (31%). 3.375 g q6h (27%), 4.5 g q8h (17%) and 6.75 g CI (10%). However, for cefepime, 4 g CI had the highest probability of target attainment (7714). followed by 1 g q8h (65%), 2 g q12h (58%), 3 g CI (46%) and 1 g q12h (27%). Although the probabilities of target attainment for cefepime were higher than for piperacillin/tazobactam, neither agent achieved a high probability of target attainment and should not be used routinely for the treatment of ESBL infections. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available