Is continuous infusion of imipenem always the best choice?

Monte Carlo simulations allow prediction and comparison of concentration-time profiles arising from different dosing regimens in a defined population, provided a population pharmacokinetic model has been established. The aims of this study were to evaluate the population pharmacokinetics of imipenem in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and to assess the probability of target attainment (PTA) and cumulative fraction of response (CFR) using EUCAST data. A two-compartment model based on a data set of 19 subjects was employed. Various dosage regimens at 0.5-h and 3-h infusion rates and as continuous infusion were evaluated against the pharmacodynamic targets of 20%fT>MIC, 40%fT>MIC and 100%fT>MIC. For the target of 40%fT>MIC, all 0.5-h infusion regimens achieved optimal exposures (CFR ≥ 90%) against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, with nearly optimal exposure against Klebsiella pneumoniae (CFR ≥ 89.4%). The 3-h infusions and continuous infusion exceeded 97% CFR against all pathogens with the exception of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp., where the maximum CFRs were 85.5% and 88.4%, respectively. For the 100%fT>MIC target, only continuous infusion was associated with nearly optimal exposures. Higher PTAs for the targets of 40%fT>MIC and 100%fT>MIC were achieved with 3-h infusions and continuous infusion in comparison with 0.5-h infusions; however, continuous infusion carries a risk of not reaching the MIC of less susceptible pathogens in a higher proportion of patients. In critically ill patients with HAP with risk factors for Gram-negative non-fermenting bacteria, maximum doses administered as extended infusions may be necessary. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. and International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

Citation

Hana Suchánková, Michal Lipš, Karel Urbánek, Michael N Neely, Jan Strojil. Is continuous infusion of imipenem always the best choice? International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2017 Mar;49(3):348-354

Mesh Tags

Substances

PMID: 28189734

search → result