4.5 Article

Therapeutic guidelines for prescribing antibiotics in neonates should be evidence-based: a French national survey

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 100, 期 4, 页码 394-398

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306873

关键词

-

资金

  1. Treat Infections in NeoNates network (TINN1, EU) [223614 TINN1]
  2. Treat Infections in NeoNates network (TINN2, EU) [260908 TINN2]
  3. Global Research in Paediatrics-Network of Excellence (GRIP, EU) [261060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This survey aims to describe and analyse the dosage regimens of antibiotics in French neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods Senior doctors from 56 French NICUs were contacted by telephone and/or email to provide their local guidelines for antibiotic therapy. Results 44 (79%) NICUs agreed to participate in this survey. In total, 444 dosage regimens were identified in French NICUs for 41 antibiotics. The number of different dosage regimens varied from 1 to 32 per drug (mean 9, SD 7.8). 37% of intravenous dosage regimens used a unique mg/kg dose from preterm to full-term neonates. Doses and/or dosing intervals varied significantly for 12 antibiotics (amikacin, gentamicin, netilmicin, tobramycin, vancomycin administered as continuous infusion, ceftazidime, cloxacillin, oxacillin, penicillin G, imipenem/cilastatin, clindamycin and metronidazole). Among these antibiotics, 6 were used in more than 70% of local guidelines and had significant variations in (1) maintenance daily doses for amikacin, imipenem/cilastatin, ceftazidime and metronidazole; (2) loading doses for continuous infusion of vancomycin; and (3) dosing intervals for gentamicin and amikacin. Conclusions A considerable inter-centre variability of dosage regimens of antibiotics exists in French NICUs. Developmental pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies are essential for the evaluation of antibiotics in order to establish evidence-based dosage regimens for effective and safe administration in neonates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据