4.7 Article

Defining optimal dosing of ciprofloxacin in patients with septic shock

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 1662-1669

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkz069

关键词

-

资金

  1. Skane Region Research Funds
  2. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1099452, APP1117065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with septic shock may undergo extensive physiological alterations that can alter antibiotic pharmacokinetics. Objectives: To describe the population pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin in septic shock and to define recommendations for effective ciprofloxacin dosing in these patients. Methods: Adult patients with septic shock treated with ciprofloxacin were eligible for inclusion. Concentrations were measured by HPLC-MS/MS. Population pharmacokinetic modelling was performed with Monte Carlo simulations then used to define dosing regimens that optimize the PTA of an AUC/MIC ratio>125 for different MICs and fractional target attainment (FTA) of empirical and targeted therapy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Results: We included 48 patients with median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 49 and 90 day mortality of 33%. Ciprofloxacin pharmacokinetics was best described by a two-compartment linear model including CLCR and body weight as covariates on CL and central volume respectively. With a dose of 400 mg q8h and CLCR of 80 mL/min, >= 95% PTA was achieved for bacteria with MICs <= 0.25 mg/L. For empirical treatment of P. aeruginosa, 600mg q8h only reached a maximum of 68% FTA. For directed therapy against P. aeruginosa, a dose of 600mg q8h was needed to achieve sufficient AUC/MIC ratios. Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, standard ciprofloxacin dosing achieved concentrations to successfully treat bacteria with MICs <= 0.25 mg/L and then only in patients with normal or reduced CLCR. To cover pathogens with higher MICs or in patients with augmented renal CL, doses may have to be increased.

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

4.7
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