4.7 Article

Iohexol-Measured Glomerular Filtration Rate and Urinary Biomarker Changes between Vancomycin and Vancomycin Plus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in a Translational Rat Model

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/aac.00304-23

关键词

vancomycin; nephrotoxicity; glomerular function; kidney injury biomarkers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent clinical studies have reported additive nephrotoxicity with the combination of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam. However, preclinical models have failed to replicate this finding. This study assessed differences in iohexol-measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and urinary injury biomarkers among rats receiving this antibiotic combination. Male Sprague-Dawley rats received either intravenous vancomycin, intraperitoneal piperacillin-tazobactam, or both for 96 h. Iohexol-measured GFR was used to quantify real-time kidney function changes. Kidney injury was evaluated with the urinary biomarkers kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), clusterin, and osteopontin. Compared to the control, rats that received vancomycin had numerically lower GFRs after drug dosing on day 3. Rats in this group also had elevations in urinary KIM-1 on experimental days 2 and 4. Increasing urinary KIM-1 was found to correlate with decreasing GFR on experimental days 1 and 3. Rats that received vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam (vancomycin+piperacillin-tazobactam) did not exhibit worse kidney function or injury biomarkers than rats receiving vancomycin alone. The combination of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam does not cause additive nephrotoxicity in a translational rat model. Future clinical studies investigating this antibiotic combination should employ more sensitive biomarkers of kidney function and injury, similar to those utilized in this study. Recent clinical studies have reported additive nephrotoxicity with the combination of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam. However, preclinical models have failed to replicate this finding.

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