4.3 Article

Pharmacodynamics of once- versus twice-daily dosing of nebulized amikacin in an in vitro Hollow-Fiber Infection Model against 3 clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115329

关键词

Pharmacodynamics; Amikacin; Ventilator-associated pneumonia; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

资金

  1. Griffith School of Medicine Research Higher Degree scholarship
  2. University of Queensland PostDoctoral Fellowship
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1099452, APP1117065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the bacterial killing of once- versus twice-daily nebulized amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and found that 800 mg once-daily dose achieved >2-log reduction in bacterial burden within the first 24 hours. There was no difference in bacterial killing or regrowth between 3 and 7 days of amikacin therapy, suggesting that 800 mg once-daily for up to 3 days could be considered for future clinical trials.
This study aims to compare the bacterial killing of once-versus twice-daily nebulized amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and to determine the optimal duration of therapy. Three clinical P. aeruginosa isolates (amikacin MICs 2, 8, and 64 mg/L) were exposed to simulated epithelial lining fluid exposures of nebulized amikacin with dosing regimens of 400 mg and 800 mg once-or twice-daily up to 7-days using the in vitro hollow -fiber infection model. Quantitative cultures were performed. Simulated amikacin dosing regimens of 400 mg twice-daily and 800 mg once-daily achieved >2-log reduction in the bacterial burden within the first 24-hours of therapy for all isolates tested. No dosing regimen suppressed the emergence of amikacin resistance. No difference in bacterial killing or regrowth was observed between 3-and 7-days of amikacin. Amikacin doses of 800 mg once-daily for up to 3-days may be considered for future clinical trials. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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