4.7 Article

Levofloxacin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients with severe burn injury

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 1937-1945

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01466-05

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Levofloxacin pharmacokinetics were studied in 11 patients with severe burn injuries. Patients (values are means standard deviations; age, 41 +/- 17 years; weight, 81 +/- 12 kg; creatinine clearance, 114 +/- 40 ml/min) received intravenous levofloxacin at 750 mg (n = 10 patients) or 500 mg (n = one patient) once daily. Blood samples were collected on day I of levofloxacin therapy; eight patients were studied again on days 4 to 6. The pharmacodynamic probability of target attainment (PTA) was evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. Mean systemic clearance, half-life, and area under the concentration-time curve over 24 It after levofloxacin at 750 mg were 9.0 +/- 3.2 liters/h, 7.8 +/- 1.6 h, and 93 +/- 31 mg center dot h/liter, respectively. There were no differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between day I and day 4; however, large intrapatient and interpatient variability was observed. Levofloxacin pharmacokinetics in burned patients were similar to those reported in other critically ill populations. Levofloxacin at 750 mg achieved > 90% PTA for gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens with MICs of <= 50.5 mu g/ml and MICs of <= 1 mu g/ml, respectively. However, satisfactory PTA was not obtained with less-susceptible gram-negative organisms with MICs of 1 mu g/ml or any organism with a MIC of >= 2 mu g/ml. The results of this study indicate that levofloxacin should be administered at 750 mg/day for treatment of systemic infections in severely burned patients. However, even 750 mg/day may be inadequate for gram-negative organisms with MICs of 1 to 2 mu g/ml even though they are defined as susceptible. Alternative antibiotics or treatment strategies should be considered for infections due to these pathogens.

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