4.7 Article

Stability and compatibility study of cefepime in comparison with ceftazidime for potential administration by continuous infusion under conditions pertinent to ambulatory treatment of cystic fibrosis patients and to administration in intensive care units

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 651-658

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkg134

关键词

stability; continuous infusion; degradation; compatibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cefepime has been examined for stability, potential liberation of degradation products and compatibility with other drugs under conditions mimicking its potential use by continuous infusion in cystic fibrosis and intensive care patients (5-12% w/v solutions; temperatures from 20 to 37degreesC; 1 h contact at 25degreesC with other drugs frequently co-administered by intravenous route to these types of patients). Ceftazidime was used as a comparator based on a previous normative study with this antibiotic for the same indications. Based on a limit of max. 10% degradation, cefepime can be considered stable for a maximum of 24 h at 25degreesC, but for only similar to14 h at 30degreesC, and for <10 h at 37 degrees C. Cefepime released so far unidentified degradation products if maintained at >30degreesC for >12 h as shown from a marked increase in pH and from the development of a strong red-purple colour. Incompatibilities were observed with erythromycin, propofol, midazolam, phenytoin, piritramide, theophylline, nicardipine, N-acetylcysteine and a concentrated solution of dobutamine. We conclude that: (i) cefepime cannot be used safely by continuous infusion if containers are kept for more than a few hours at 37degreesC (as will be the case for cystic fibrosis patients if using portable pumps carried under clothes); (ii) caution must be exercised in intensive care patients if the temperature and co-administration of other drugs is not kept under tight control. The nature and safety of the cefepime degradation products need to be studied further.

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