4.2 Article

Variation in vancomycin dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring practices in neonatal intensive care units

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 564-569

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-021-01345-9

关键词

Antibiotic policy; NICU; Therapeutic drug monitoring; Vancomycin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significant inter-centre variability in dosing and TDM practices was found in Belgian and Dutch NICUs. Development of international consensus guidelines is required to optimize therapy, while dosing calculators to guide dosing are not yet considered as part of standard-of-care.
Background Vancomycin is a frequently used antibiotic in neonates. However, there is no consensus guideline on the optimal dosing regimen and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) practices in this patient population. Objective To document the variability in the current dosing and TDM practices in neonatal intensive care units (NICU). Setting Belgian and Dutch NICUs. Method An online questionnaire was disseminated by e-mail to potential respondents. Main outcome measure Differences in vancomycin dosing and TDM practices in comparison with a reference source, the Dutch Paediatric Formulary. Results Eighteen NICUs (response rate 62%) participated. Eleven different dosing regimens are applied, with 83% using intermittent dosing regimens. Stratifying covariates used to determine the (initial) dosage include gestational age, postnatal age, serum creatinine, concurrent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, birth weight and current weight. Large variability is observed with regard to TDM practice as well, both for the concentration target range and the times of (re)sampling. Dosing calculators are more commonly used in the Netherlands than Belgium. Conclusion Significant inter-centre variability in dosing and TDM practices was found. The development of international consensus guidelines is required to optimize therapy. Dosing calculators to guide dosing are not yet considered as part of standard-of-care.

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

4.2
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