Evidence Hub

Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Continuous versus Short-Term Infusion of Imipenem-Cilastatin in Critically Ill Patients in a Randomized, Controlled Trial

S. Sakka, A. Glauner, J. Bulitta, M. Kinzig‐Schippers, W. Pfister, G. Drusano, F. Sörgel

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2007

20 participants · 157 citations

Abstract

Beta-lactams are regularly administered in intermittent short-term infusions. The percentage of the dosing interval during which free drug concentrations exceed the MIC (fT(>MIC)) is the measure of drug exposure that best correlates with clinical outcome for beta-lactams. Therefore, administration by continuous infusion has gained increasing interest recently. We studied 20 critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia and investigated whether continuous infusion with a reduced total dose, compared to the standard regimen of intermittent short-term infusion, results in a superior probability of target attainment as assessed by the fT(>MIC) value of imipenem. In this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study, patients received either a loading dose of 1 g/1 g imipenem and cilastatin (as a short-term infusion) at time zero, followed by 2 g/2 g imipenem-cilastatin per 24 h as a continuous infusion for 3 days (n = 10), or 1 g/1 g imipenem-cilastatin three times per day as a short-term infusion for 3 days (total daily dose, 3 g/3 g; n = 10). Imipenem concentrations in plasma were determined by using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. A two-compartment open model was employed for population pharmacokinetic modeling. We simulated 10,000 intensive-care-unit patients via Monte Carlo simulations for pharmacodynamic evaluation using the target 40% fT(>MIC). The probability of target attainment by MIC for intermittent infusion was robust…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free