» Articles » PMID: 20038614

Clinical Pharmacodynamics of Cefepime in Patients Infected with Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2009 Dec 30
PMID 20038614
Citations 48
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We evaluated cefepime exposures in patients infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa to identify the pharmacodynamic relationship predictive of microbiological response. Patients with non-urinary tract P. aeruginosa infections and treated with cefepime were included. Free cefepime exposures were estimated by using a validated population pharmacokinetic model. P. aeruginosa MICs were determined by Etest and pharmacodynamic indices (the percentage of the dosing interval that the free drug concentration remains above the MIC of the infecting organism [fT > MIC], the ratio of the minimum concentration of free drug to the MIC [fC(min)/MIC], and the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve for free drug to the MIC [fAUC/MIC]) were calculated for each patient. Classification and regression tree analysis was used to partition the pharmacodynamic parameters for prediction of the microbiological response. Monte Carlo simulation was utilized to determine the optimal dosing regimens needed to achieve the pharmacodynamic target. Fifty-six patients with pneumonia (66.1%), skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) (25%), and bacteremia (8.9%) were included. Twenty-four (42.9%) patients failed cefepime therapy. The MICs ranged from 0.75 to 96 microg/ml, resulting in median fT > MIC, fC(m)(in)/MIC, and fAUC/MIC exposures of 100% (range, 0.8 to 100%), 4.3 (range, 0.1 to 27.3), and 206.2 (range, 4.2 to 1,028.7), respectively. Microbiological failure was associated with an fT > MIC of < or =60% (77.8% failed cefepime therapy when fT > MIC was < or =60%, whereas 36.2% failed cefepime therapy when fT > MIC was >60%; P = 0.013). A similar fT > MIC target of < or =63.9% (P = 0.009) was identified when skin and skin structure infections were excluded. While controlling for the SSSI source (odds ratio [OR], 0.18 [95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 1.19]; P = 0.07) and combination therapy (OR, 2.15 [95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 7.88]; P = 0.25), patients with fT > MIC values of < or =60% were 8.1 times (95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 55.6 times) more likely to experience a poor microbiological response. Cefepime doses of at least 2 g every 8 h are required to achieve this target against CLSI-defined susceptible P. aeruginosa organisms in patients with normal renal function. In patients with non-urinary tract infections caused by P. aeruginosa, achievement of cefepime exposures of >60% fT > MIC will minimize the possibility of a poor microbiological response.

Citing Articles

Dose optimization of piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and ceftazidime for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Türkiye.

Buyukyanbolu E, Gill C, Genc L, Karakus M, Comert F, Otlu B Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2024; 44(1):159-165.

PMID: 39546100 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-024-04990-w.


Challenges for global antibiotic regimen planning and establishing antimicrobial resistance targets: implications for the WHO Essential Medicines List and AWaRe antibiotic book dosing.

Reza N, Gerada A, Stott K, Howard A, Sharland M, Hope W Clin Microbiol Rev. 2024; 37(2):e0013923.

PMID: 38436564 PMC: 11324030. DOI: 10.1128/cmr.00139-23.


Cefepime Daily Exposure and the Associated Impact on the Change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Scores and Vasopressors Requirement in Critically Ill Patients Using Repeated-Measures Mixed-Effect Modeling.

Alshaer M, Williams R, Mousa M, Alexander K, Maguigan K, Manigaba K Crit Care Explor. 2024; 5(11):e0993.

PMID: 38304706 PMC: 10833631. DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000993.


Renally Dosed Cefepime Leading to Cefepime-Induced Neurotoxicity: A Case Report.

Smith M, Mehdizadeh C, Mourkus A, Ansari S Cureus. 2024; 16(1):e52162.

PMID: 38222987 PMC: 10785996. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52162.


Cefepime Population Pharmacokinetics, Antibacterial Target Attainment, and Estimated Probability of Neurotoxicity in Critically Ill Patients.

Bilal M, Zoller M, Fuhr U, Jaehde U, Ullah S, Liebchen U Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2023; 67(7):e0030923.

PMID: 37366614 PMC: 10353438. DOI: 10.1128/aac.00309-23.


References
1.
Tam V, McKinnon P, Akins R, Drusano G, Rybak M . Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cefepime in patients with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003; 47(6):1853-61. PMC: 155813. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.6.1853-1861.2003. View

2.
Zanetti G, Bally F, Greub G, Garbino J, Kinge T, Lew D . Cefepime versus imipenem-cilastatin for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a multicenter, evaluator-blind, prospective, randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003; 47(11):3442-7. PMC: 253800. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.11.3442-3447.2003. View

3.
Mandell L, Wunderink R, Anzueto A, Bartlett J, Campbell G, Dean N . Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 44 Suppl 2:S27-72. PMC: 7107997. DOI: 10.1086/511159. View

4.
. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005; 171(4):388-416. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200405-644ST. View

5.
Lipman J, Wallis S, Rickard C . Low plasma cefepime levels in critically ill septic patients: pharmacokinetic modeling indicates improved troughs with revised dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999; 43(10):2559-61. PMC: 89521. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.43.10.2559. View