Evidence Hub

A descriptive pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of continuous infusion ceftazidime/avibactam in a case series of renal critically ill patients treated for documented carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bloodstream infections and/or ventilator-associated pneumonia

M. Gatti, R. Pascale, P. Cojutti, M. Rinaldi, S. Ambretti, M. Conti, S. Tedeschi, M. Giannella et al.

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2022

30 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To describe the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) behaviour of continuous infusion (CI) ceftazidime/avibactam and the microbiological outcome in a case series of renal critically ill patients treated for documented carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative (CR-GN) bloodstream infections (BSI) and/or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

METHODS

Critically ill patients with different degrees of renal function treated with CI ceftazidime-avibactam for documented CR-GN infections and underwent therapeutic drug monitoring from April 2021 to March 2022 were retrospectively assessed. Ceftazidime and avibactam concentrations were determined at steady-state, and the free fraction (fCss) was calculated. The joint PK/PD target of ceftazidime-avibactam was considered as optimal when both Css/MIC ratio for ceftazidime≥4 (equivalent to 100%fT>4xMIC) and Css/CT ratio for avibactam>1 (equivalent to 100% fT>CT of 4.0 mg/L) were simultaneously achieved (quasi-optimal if only one of the two was achieved, and suboptimal if none of the two was achieved). Relationship between ceftazidime-avibactam PK/PD targets and microbiological outcome was assessed.

RESULTS

Ten patients with documented CR-GN infections (5 BSIs, 4 VAP, and one BSI+VAP) were retrieved. The joint PK/PD targets of ceftazidime-avibactam were optimal and quasi-optimal in 8 and 2 cases, respectively. Microbiological failure occurred in two patients (one with VAP and the other with BSI+VAP), and one of these developed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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