Are Antibiotics Appropriately Dosed in Critically Ill Patients with Augmented Renal Clearance? A Narrative Review

Sistanizad, Mohammad; Hassanpour, Rezvan; Pourheidar, Elham

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1867674

International Journal of Clinical Practice

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Conclusion Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1867674 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1867674

Are Antibiotics Appropriately Dosed in Critically Ill Patients with Augmented Renal Clearance? A Narrative Review

Mohammad Sistanizad,^1,2Rezvan Hassanpour,¹and Elham Pourheidar¹

Academic Editor: Khaled Saad

Received13 Oct 2021

Revised17 Nov 2021

Accepted03 Dec 2021

Published31 Jan 2022

Abstract

Aims. Augmented renal clearance (ARC), which is commonly defined as increased renal clearance above 130 ml/min/1.73 m², is a common phenomenon among critically ill patients. The increased elimination rate of drugs through the kidneys in patients with ARC can increase the risk of treatment failure due to the exposure to subtherapeutic serum concentrations of medications and affect the optimal management of infections, length of hospital stay, and outcomes. The main goal of this review article is to summarize the recommendations for appropriate dosing of antibiotics in patients with ARC. Methods. This article is a narrative review of the articles that evaluated different dosing regimens of antibiotics in patients with ARC. The keywords “Augmented Renal Clearance,” “Critically ill patients,” “Drug dosing,” “Serum concentration,” “Beta-lactams,” “Meropenem,” “Imipenem,” “Glycopeptide,” “Vancomycin,” “Teicoplanin,” “Linezolid,” “Colistin,” “Aminoglycosides,” “Amikacin,” “Gentamycin,” “Fluoroquinolones,” “Ciprofloxacin,” and “Levofloxacin” were searched in Scopus, Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, and pediatric, nonhuman, and non-English studies were excluded. Results. PK properties of antibiotics including lipophilicity or hydrophilicity, protein binding, the volume of distribution, and elimination rate that affect drug concentration should be considered along with PD parameters for drug dosing in critically ill patients with ARC. Conclusion. This review recommends a dosing protocol for some antibiotics to help the appropriate dosing of antibiotics in ARC and decrease the risk of subtherapeutic exposure that may be observed while receiving conventional dosing regimens in critically ill patients with ARC.

1. What Is Known?

Augmented renal clearance (ARC) is a common phenomenon in critical care settings. The incidence of ARC was reported between 14 and 85% depending on the study population and the cutoff value of creatinine clearance (CrCl). The CrCl ≥130 ml/min/1.73 m² has been considered the ARC phenomenon in most studies, although different values have been suggested as well. The elimination rate of drugs, especially hydrophilic antibiotics that are mainly eliminated through the kidney, increased in ARC. According to the effect of ARC on the optimal management of infections, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcomes, determination of the ARC phenomenon is necessary for adjusting the optimal treatment to reduce the risk of subtherapeutic exposure that may be observed while receiving conventional dosing regimens in critically ill patients with ARC.

1.1. What Is New?

The higher rate of renal elimination of the medications in ARC impacts the dosing regimens of antibiotics to achieve target pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices. There are some review articles aimed to recommend dosing regimens for antibiotics in patients with ARC while reviewing the related articles, but each contains only several antibiotics, particularly B-lactams and vancomycin. We tried to prepare an almost complete article that involved most antibiotics with renal excretion.

2. Introduction

Infections are one of the most common problems encountered in critically ill patients and may prolong the hospital length of stay, as well as increasing patient mortality rates [1]. The choice of appropriate antibiotics, early administration, and using appropriate dosing regimens are necessary for optimal management of infections [2, 3], whereas augmented renal clearance (ARC) can increase the risk of treatment failure due to subtherapeutic exposure of antibiotics [1, 4–15]. ARC is usually defined as increased renal clearance above 130 ml/min/1.73 m² [4, 6, 15, 16]. According to the increase of the elimination rate of drugs in ARC, especially hydrophilic antibiotics that are mainly eliminated through the kidney, such as beta-lactams, vancomycin, and aminoglycosides, the optimal management of infections and subsequently the length of hospital stay and outcomes are affected [1, 4–15]. Dosing optimization may be particularly important in infections caused by less-susceptible pathogens, where higher antibiotic exposures may be required for optimal efficacy [10, 17]. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a highly recommended method for dosing optimization and individualizing the regimen [3, 5, 17–20]. The major limitation of TDM is the lack of availability in every hospital and for every drug.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no published guideline for drug dosing in patients with ARC. The main goal of this narrative review article is to summarize the recommendations for appropriate dosing of antibiotics in ARC to reduce the risk of subtherapeutic exposure that may be observed while receiving conventional dosing regimens in critically ill patients with ARC.

3. Methods

This article is a narrative review of the articles that evaluated different dosing regimens of antibiotics in patients with ARC. The keywords “Augmented Renal Clearance,” “Critically ill patients,” “Drug dosing,” “Serum concentration,” “Beta-lactams,” “Meropenem,” “Imipenem,” “Glycopeptide,” “Vancomycin,” “Teicoplanin,” “Linezolid,” “Colistin,” “Aminoglycosides,” “Amikacin,” “Gentamycin,” “Fluoroquinolones,” “Ciprofloxacin,” and “Levofloxacin” were searched in Scopus, Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, and pediatric, nonhuman, and non-English studies were excluded.

3.1. Quality of the Studies Included

All studies except systematic reviews and meta-analyses and case reports were independently rated for quality by two reviewers using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tools [21]. The studies were assessed with questions appropriate to the study design. We graded the quality of the study as good (G) if its rating was at least 70%, fair (F) if its rating was at least 50%, and poor (P) if its rating was less than 50% (Table 1).

4. Results

Studies that described the impact of ARC on the dosing regimens of antibiotics, based on achieving target pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices, have increased in recent years. There are some review articles aimed to recommend dosing regimens for antibiotics in patients with ARC, but each contains only a few antibiotics, particularly B-lactams and vancomycin [4, 8, 15, 57, 58]. We tried to prepare an almost complete article summarizing the dosing recommendations for most antibiotics with renal excretion.

4.1. Beta-Lactams (B-Lactams)

The pattern of B-lactams activity is time-dependent. The time that the free drug plasma concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen (fT > MIC) has an essential role in efficacy. In practice, depending on the pathogen and the type of B-lactam, fT > MIC for 40–70% of the dosing interval is considered an acceptable PD target [4, 11]. In critically ill patients, fT > 4 MIC has been suggested to improve clinical outcomes [4, 8, 13] (Table 2).

B-lactams are mainly eliminated through the kidneys, and renal function alteration could influence the elimination rate constant and consequently PK/PD parameters of these drugs [4]. Evaluation of the correlation between B-lactam concentration and creatinine clearance (CrCl) showed 55% and 36% subtherapeutic B-lactam levels in ARC patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter spp. infections, respectively [17]. Udy A.A. et al. also reported 82% and 72% of trough levels were less than the MIC and 4 MIC, respectively, in critically ill patients with ARC treated with empirical doses of B-lactams [29].

Although Udy A.A. et al. reported no statistically significant differences in the outcome of the patients with ARC who received continuous B-lactam infusion compared with those who received intermittent infusion [59], some articles recommended increasing frequency of infusion as well as increasing the dosage to increase achieving the optimal fT > MIC in patients with ARC [13, 15]. Continuous infusion (over 24 hr) of conventional doses can improve the optimal exposure to B-lactams in patients with ARC, compared to intermittent (over 30 min) or extended infusion (over 3–4 hr) [5]. Extended infusion of standard doses of B-lactams in patients with ARC resulted in 80% less than 100%fT > MIC and 37% less than 50%fT > MIC [1]. Reviewing the articles that compared prolonged infusion and intermittent infusion to achieve effective B-lactam exposure and maximal bacterial killing showed that even with prolonged infusion, effective exposure may not be achieved in critically ill patients with ARC [60]. Carrie et al. reported CrCl 170 ml/min as a sensitive threshold (93%) to predict subexposure to B-lactams despite the continuous infusion of high doses [6]. Hobbs A.L.V. et al. had recommended a dosing nomogram for different antibiotics, including B-lactams, in critically ill patients with ARC according to their PK/PD targets and breakpoints that are included in Table 1 [8].

The impact of ARC on clinical outcomes is evaluated by some studies [6, 7, 23, 24, 28, 59] that some of them denied this association [7, 59] and some of them reported a decrease in clinical response following the increase in CrCl [23, 24, 28, 61, 62].

4.1.1. Meropenem

Higher doses of meropenem have been recommended in ARC patients, and studies showed that conventional regimens of meropenem are suboptimal for patients with ARC [10, 12, 30]. It has been shown that, in septic patients with ARC, 8–12 g meropenem daily is needed to obtain the PD target [12, 30]. In patients with CrCl 60 to 90 ml/min/1.73 , 6 g meropenem daily has been recommended to achieve the PD target, whereas in patients with CrCl 90 ml/min/1.73 , in addition to increased dosage, increasing frequency or prolonging duration of infusion also has been reported [10]. In addition to doses and strategy of infusion, Agyeman A. A. et al. recommended combination therapy with meropenem and ciprofloxacin against P. aeruginosa isolates to increase synergistic killing and decrease resistance in patients with ARC [22].

4.1.2. Piperacillin-Tazobactam (PTZ)

PK models of nine dosing regimens of PTZ (intermittent infusion, extended infusion (EI), and continuous infusion (CI) of 16 g, 12 g, and 8 g daily piperacillin) have been assessed as achieving the PD targets in septic patients with different CrCls and for different MICs. The MIC of 16 mg/L has been proposed as the clinical cutoff point of piperacillin for P. aeruginosa and the probability of target attainment (PTA) 90% for optimal piperacillin regimens. The results showed the PTA was 90% for 50% fT > MIC in all three CI regimens and EI of 12 and 16 g piperacillin daily, whereas the PTA for 100% fT > MIC was 90% only in all three CI regimens [9]. Treating the patients with 16 + 2 g/day and 20 + 2.5 g/day PTZ was also associated with 100% fT > MIC in 93% and 98% of patients with 130 CrCl < 200 ml/min and 80% and 90% of patients with CrCl 200 ml/min, respectively. The daily dose of 20 + 2.5 g PTZ was recommended for patients with CrCl 170 ml/min to reach the PD target with the highest probability [26]. No intoxication or supratherapeutic levels were reported by 20 + 2.5 g PTZ daily in critically ill patients with ARC [25, 26]. In another PK model study, it is reported that even continuous infusion of higher doses of piperacillin (24 g daily) was insufficient to achieve the acceptable PD target in ARC patients with CrCl 90 ml/min [27].

4.2. Glycopeptides

The antibacterial activity pattern of glycopeptides is both time- and concentration-dependent, and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) for 24 hr, relative to the pathogen MIC (AUC0–24/MIC) ratio, is considered the best parameter to predict their antibacterial activity [8, 13] (Table 2). Glycopeptides are hydrophilic agents and are eliminated primarily through the kidney [63], so the change in CrCl can affect the PK/PD parameters of these drugs.

4.2.1. Vancomycin

For vancomycin, the target of AUC0–24/MIC 400 has been proposed to have optimal clinical outcomes [8, 35]. Studies showed the correlation of ARC with the augmented clearance of vancomycin, subtherapeutic serum concentration, and a higher risk of treatment failure [14, 64]. It has been observed that using conventional doses of vancomycin (1000 mg every 12 hr) resulted in 62.9% trough concentrations <10 mg/L. The trough level remained less than 10 mg/L despite increasing the dosage of vancomycin to 1000 mg every 8 hr or 1500 mg every 12 hr [33]. A mean daily dose of 44 9 mg/kg/day vancomycin in trauma patients with ARC was also associated with 54.2% therapeutic trough concentration <10 mg/L [32]. According to TDM data, there was a need for higher doses of vancomycin in patients with ARC compared with non-ARC patients (35.7 mg/kg/day vs. 27.1 mg/kg/day) [34]. A loading dose (LD) of 25–30 mg/kg vancomycin followed by a maintenance dose (MD) of 15–20 mg/kg every 8–12 hr or 45 mg/kg/day for vancomycin is recommended in critically ill patients with ARC [8, 15]. Also, it has been proposed that an LD of 35 mg/kg vancomycin followed by continuous infusion of 35 mg/kg/day needs to keep the vancomycin trough concentration within the target therapeutic range in the CrCl equal to 100 ml/min/1.73 m² and higher CrCls need the larger MD to maintain the therapeutic exposure [35]. Fransson et al. reported a case with intracranial infection caused by Streptococcus intermedius stating that they did not achieve a stable vancomycin target level until they increased the dose to 1.5 g, four times a day [31]. Baptista et al. published a vancomycin dosing nomogram in septic patients with different CrCls to achieve an ideal trough level of vancomycin on the first day of treatment with 84% success [36].

4.2.2. Teicoplanin

Teicoplanin has approximately 90–95% affinity to binding serum protein, and hypoalbuminemia may cause a low total trough level, whereas the unbound trough concentration is in the therapeutic range (1.5–4.5 mg/L). So in settings of hypoalbuminemia, measuring total and unbound trough levels of teicoplanin is recommended [11, 40, 65]. Although a total trough level 15 mg/L is considered an optimal therapeutic concentration of teicoplanin for most infections, higher trough levels are suggested for deep and severe infections [40, 66, 67]. But it should be noted that the levels were kept <60 mg/L to avoid toxicity [40, 42].

The negative association between the trough concentrations of teicoplanin and renal function has been reported [42]. Serum albumin and body weight are also other confounding factors to appropriate dosing of teicoplanin [40]. Evaluation of the impact of LD on the trough concentration of teicoplanin during 10-day treatment showed 25%, 38.9%, and 68.6% of patients who received no LD, low LD (<9 mg/kg), and high LD (9 mg/kg) achieved the total trough concentrations 20 mg/L, respectively [39]. The PTA on the 3^rd and 15^th days of treatment with 400, 600, 800, and 1000 mg teicoplanin every 12 hr for four consequent doses followed by the same doses every 24 hr for 12 days was evaluated in different CrCls. The results showed the need for 800 or 1000 mg teicoplanin as the LD to provide a trough concentration 15 mg/L on day 3 with a PTA 90%. But these doses may cause trough concentrations 60 mg/L on day 15 even in CrCls >90 mL/min/1.73 m² [41]. The administration of 12 mg/kg teicoplanin every 12 hr for five consequent doses and then 12 mg/kg every 24 hr resulted in trough concentrations ≥10 mg/L in 62% of critically ill patients with CrCl > 50 mL/min/1.73 m². The clinical effectiveness rate was reported as 88% in these patients [43]. 12 mg/kg teicoplanin for both LD and MD resulted in median total and unbound trough concentrations of 15.9 and 3.7 mcg/ml, respectively, in critically ill patients with pneumonia [45].

Due to the limitations of clinical trials in the field of adequate dosing regimen for teicoplanin in patients with ARC, we also mentioned some studies that have suggestions for teicoplanin dosing in critically ill patients whose risk of ARC is high among them. The recommendations of these articles are summarized in Table 1. Although according to the effect of both ARC and hypoalbuminemia on teicoplanin dosing and high prevalence of the hypoalbuminemia as ARC in critically ill patients, these dosing recommendations may not be an exact guide for teicoplanin dosing in patients with ARC but can be helpful.

No association was reported between teicoplanin-induced nephrotoxicity and its trough concentrations [42]. Teicoplanin trough concentrations ≥20 mg/L compared with <20 mg/L showed no significant difference in the rate of adverse events in patients with MRSA infections [38]. Although no teicoplanin-induced renal impairment was reported in trough concentrations ≥10 mg/L, the hepatotoxicity rate was 10% [43].

4.3. Linezolid

The antimicrobial activity of linezolid is time- and concentration-dependent. Besides AUC0–24/MIC and %fT > MIC that are correlated with the clinical efficacy of linezolid [46, 68], its trough concentration is also associated with clinical response and adverse events and suggested to be kept in the range of 2–10 mg/L to decrease adverse event incidence [47] (Table 2). Due to the amphiphilicity of linezolid and the limited impact of renal clearance on its excretion (approximately 30%), it does not seem ARC can cause subtherapeutic exposure to linezolid [46, 49, 50, 63]. But some studies reported the significant impact of ARC on PK properties of linezolid [46, 49]. The use of LD or continuous infusion of linezolid was recommended to improve the PTA and efficacy of linezolid in patients with ARC and severe sepsis [49]. The administration of conventional dosing of linezolid results in no PD target achievement in patients with ARC, whereas the PTA was 70% in patients with ARC who received a continuous infusion of 600 mg linezolid every 12 hr. According to Monte Carlo simulation, continuous infusion of a higher dose of linezolid (600 mg every 8 hr) could result in a PTA of 93% in patients with ARC with no linezolid-induced adverse effect [46]. The PTA of different regimens of linezolid was evaluated for the MIC of 0.5 to 4 mg/L. An optimal dosing regimen with adequate exposure was considered the one that its PTA was >90%. Although the continuous infusion of 1200 or 1800 mg/day linezolid was recommended in patients with ARC, it was the optimal dosing for MIC 0.5 mg/L, 2400 mg/day linezolid was optimal for MIC 1 mg/L, and none was optimal for MIC 2 mg/L, whether as an intermittent infusion or a continuous infusion. The trough concentrations >10 mg/L were detected by none of the dosing regimens [47]. The PTA values of 600 mg every 12 hr, 800 mg every 12 hr, and 900 mg every 12 hr of linezolid for the MIC of 2 mg/L in critically ill septic patients were 0.26%, 85.59%, and 98.81%, respectively. The dose of 800 mg linezolid every 12 hr was associated with 33.19% probability of thrombocytopenia, whereas this rate was 51.37% for 900 mg every 12 hr. According to the efficacy and safety data, 800 mg linezolid every 12 hr was recommended in septic patients [48].

4.4. Colistin

Colistin is a cationic, lipoprotein, hydrophilic antibiotic [51]. The antibacterial activity of colistin is more concentration-dependent than time-dependent, and the AUC/MIC ratio is considered the best PD index to predict its antibacterial efficacy [15, 63, 69, 70] (Table 2). Colistimitate sodium (CMS), the prodrug of colistin, is primarily eliminated through the kidney, and the increased elimination rate of CMS in ARC could alter the PK properties of colistin due to the reduced systemic bioavailability [51, 63, 70]. Studies showed the need for a longer duration therapy and consequently higher cumulative doses of colistin and higher doses of colistin than conventional regimens in patients with ARC in comparison with other patients [51, 53]. There were two cases (12.5%) with mild to moderate colistin-induced AKI, according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) classification, among patients with ARC who were treated with a longer duration of colistin [51]. The colistin-induced AKI was reported to be 44.3%, according to AKIN criteria, among ARC patients who receive higher doses of colistin, whereas none of them need renal replacement therapy or discontinuing the colistin therapy [53]. A dosing nomogram for colistin was published to achieve the appropriate antibacterial efficacy balanced with the risk of nephrotoxicity in different CrCls. But in CrCl >80 ml/min/1.73 even by the maximum daily recommended dose of colistin in the nomogram (360 mg or approximately 11 mIU daily), the PTA was <40%. So, combination therapy with colistin in addition to high-dose regimens was recommended for these patients [50, 52].

4.5. Aminoglycosides (AGs)

AGs are hydrophilic antimicrobial agents with concentration-dependent killing characteristics. Although Cmax/MIC is considered the best PD index to reflect their bactericidal effect [13, 50, 63], the monitoring of trough concentrations of AGs is also recommended to avoid drug toxicity when the plan of treatment is more than 3–5 days [50] (Table 2). AGs are eliminated predominantly through the kidneys, and their doses need to adjust following the renal function alteration [63, 71]. Some studies evaluated ARC as an effective factor in changing the PK characteristics of AGs [72, 73], but due to the limitations of articles in the field of adequate dosing regimen for AGs in patients with ARC, we also mentioned some studies that have suggestions for AG dosing in critically ill patients whose risk of ARC is high among them.

Carrie et al. used the Monte Carlo simulation to report different dosing regimens of amikacin that are needed to achieve PD targets in different CrCls and for different MICs. An optimal regimen was considered the one that had fractional target attainment (FTA) >85%. They recommended 30–35 mg/kg/day amikacin in patients with ARC especially in the exposure to less-susceptible pathogens. The FTA of 30 mg/kg/day amikacin was 30–40%, 20–30%, and 29% for Cmax/MIC 8, AUC0–24/MIC ≥75, and trough concentration 2.5 mg/L, respectively, for an MIC of 8 mg/L. These rates were near 100%, 30%, and 37%, respectively, for 35 mg/kg/day amikacin [54]. The recommended dose for gentamycin and tobramycin was 7 mg/kg/day to achieve the PD targets in patients with ARC [8].

In critically ill patients, 30 mg/kg/day amikacin and 7–10 mg/kg/day gentamycin and tobramycin were recommended as initial empirical doses to achieve the optimal PD targets in severe infections [20, 50].

%fT > MIC is another PD index that should be noted to decrease the risk of developing resistant pathogens against AGs. It was shown that fT > MIC for less than 60% of AG dosing intervals is associated with resistance development. Thereafter, 12.5 mg/kg amikacin every 12 hr instead of a high-dose extended-interval dosage regimen was recommended to achieve the PD target in the empiric treatment of septic patients with minimizing resistance development. The safety of the two regimens was also compared using neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) during 7 days of treatment, and any significant difference was not detected [55].

4.6. Fluoroquinolones (FQs)

Although the bacterial killing property of FQs is concentration-dependent, they also show some time-dependent effects [50]. The AUC0–24/MIC ratio is considered the best PK/PD parameter to predict their antibacterial efficacy and is recommended to be kept more than 125 for ciprofloxacin and more than 80 for levofloxacin to improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Gram-negative infections [8, 13, 50, 63] (Table 2). Among FQs that belong to lipophilic drugs, levofloxacin is the most hydrophilic FQ, and its PK is more affected by renal function alteration [50, 74]. In the comparison of four dosing regimens of levofloxacin to achieve the optimal PD target for different MICs in different CrCls, it was shown none of them was optimal (PTA 85%) for MIC 1 mg/L in CrCl 130 ml/min. But 1000 mg once daily was more effective than other dosing regimens, even 500 mg every 12 hr. Any of these regimens was associated with levofloxacin-related adverse events [56]. 400 mg every 8 hr or 600 mg every 12 hr and 750–1000 mg once daily or 500 mg every 12 hr were recommended as initial empirical doses for ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin in critically ill patients with ARC to achieve optimal PD targets [8, 15, 20]. According to the correlation between AUC0–24/MIC <100 and the risk of developing resistance to FQs, the use of maximum recommended doses of FQs was suggested in critically ill patients to avoid subtherapeutic exposure [50].

5. Conclusion

PK properties of antibiotics including lipophilicity or hydrophilicity, protein binding, the volume of distribution, and elimination rate that affect drug concentration should be considered along with PD parameters for drug dosing in critically ill patients with ARC. This review recommends a dosing protocol for some antibiotics to help the appropriate dosing of antibiotics in ARC and decrease the risk of subtherapeutic exposure that may be observed while receiving conventional dosing regimens in critically ill patients with ARC (Table 3).

Data Availability

The data supporting this narrative review are from previously reported studies and datasets, which have been cited. The processed data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Disclosure

All authors including Mohammad Sistanizad, Rezvan Hassanpour, and Elham Pourheidar declare being employed by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences with a primary function of research and education, and nobody is an official representative or on behalf of the government.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Authors’ Contributions

EP and RH designed the study and drafted the article. EP was involved in acquisition of data and their interpretation. MS revised the article critically for important intellectual content. All three authors gave the final approval of the version to be submitted.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Niloufar Taherpour for assisting in the statistical work of this study.

References

M. Carlier, S. Carrette, J. A. Roberts et al., “Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam prescribing in critically ill patients: does augmented renal clearance affect pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment when extended infusions are used?” Critical Care, vol. 17, no. 3, p. R84, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hites, F. S. Taccone, F. Wolff et al., “Broad-spectrum β-lactams in obese non-critically ill patients,” Nutrition and Diabetes, vol. 4, no. 6, p. e119, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Abdulla, T. M. J. Ewoldt, N. G. M. Hunfeld et al., “The effect of therapeutic drug monitoring of beta-lactam and fluoroquinolones on clinical outcome in critically ill patients: the DOLPHIN trial protocol of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 20, pp. 57–59, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Bilbao-Meseguer, A. Rodríguez-Gascón, H. Barrasa, A. Isla, and M. Á. Solinís, “Augmented renal clearance in critically ill patients: a systematic review,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1107–1121, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. B. Sime, A. A. Udy, and J. A. Roberts, “Augmented renal clearance in critically ill patients: etiology, definition and implications for beta-lactam dose optimization,” Current Opinion in Pharmacology, vol. 24, pp. 1–6, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Carrié, L. Petit, N. d”Houdain et al., “Association between augmented renal clearance, antibiotic exposure and clinical outcome in critically ill septic patients receiving high doses of β-lactams administered by continuous infusion: a prospective observational study,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 443–449, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Huttner, E. Von Dach, A. Renzoni et al., “Augmented renal clearance, low β-lactam concentrations and clinical outcomes in the critically ill: an observational prospective cohort study,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 385–392, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. L. V. Hobbs, K. M. Shea, K. M. Roberts, and M. J. Daley, “Implications of augmented renal clearance on drug dosing in critically ill patients: a focus on antibiotics,” Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1063–1075, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Andersen, A. Thorsted, and M. Storgaard, “Population pharmacokinetics of piperacillin in sepsis patients: should alternative dosing strategies be considered?” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 62, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Burger, M. Guidi, V. Calpini et al., “Effect of renal clearance and continuous renal replacement therapy on appropriateness of recommended meropenem dosing regimens in critically ill patients with susceptible life-threatening infections,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 3413–3422, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Richards, I. Joubert, and A. Brink, “Optimising the administration of antibiotics in critically ill patients,” South African Medical Journal, vol. 105, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Tröger, A. Drust, J. Martens-Lobenhoffer, I. Tanev, R. C. Braun-Dullaeus, and S. M. Bode-Böger, “Decreased meropenem levels in Intensive Care Unit patients with augmented renal clearance: benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 370–372, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Udy, J. A. Roberts, R. J. Boots, D. L. Paterson, and J. Lipman, “Augmented renal clearance,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Cook and J. Hatton‐Kolpek, “Augmented renal clearance,” Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 346–354, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Mahmoud and C. Shen, “Augmented renal clearance in critical illness: an important consideration in drug dosing,” Pharmaceutics, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 36, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ruiz, V. Minville, K. Asehnoune et al., “Screening of patients with augmented renal clearance in ICU: taking into account the CKD-EPI equation, the age, and the cause of admission,” Annals of Intensive Care, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 49, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Jacobs, F. S. Taccone, J. A. Roberts et al., “β-Lactam dosage regimens in septic patients with augmented renal clearance,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 62, no. 9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Atkinson, “Augmented renal clearance,” Translational and Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 111–114, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Baptista, “Augmented renal clearance,” Antibiotic Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Considerations in the Critically Ill, pp. 125–150, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Tängdén, V. R. Martín, V. Ramos Martín et al., “The role of infection models and PK/PD modelling for optimising care of critically ill patients with severe infections,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1021–1032, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Study Quality Assessment Tools, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 2021.
A. A. Agyeman, K. E. Rogers, J. R. Tait et al., “Evaluation of meropenem‐ciprofloxacin combination dosage regimens for the pharmacokinetics of critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 1104–1115, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Carrié, G. Chadefaux, N. Sauvage et al., “Increased β-Lactams dosing regimens improve clinical outcome in critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance treated for a first episode of hospital or ventilator-acquired pneumonia: a before and after study,” Critical Care, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 379, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gerlach, E. Wenzler, L. Hunt, J. Bazan, and K. Bauer, “Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic predictions and clinical outcomes of patients with augmented renal clearance and Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia and/or pneumonia treated with extended infusion cefepime versus extended infusion piperacillin/tazobactam,” International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 138, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Besnard, C. Carrié, L. Petit, and M. Biais, “Increased dosing regimens of piperacillin-tazobactam are needed to avoid subtherapeutic exposure in critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance,” Critical Care, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 13, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Carrié, R. Legeron, L. Petit et al., “Higher than standard dosing regimen are needed to achieve optimal antibiotic exposure in critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance receiving piperacillin-tazobactam administered by continuous infusion,” Journal of Critical Care, vol. 48, pp. 66–71, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. M. Dhaese, J. A. Roberts, M. Carlier, A. G. Verstraete, V. Stove, and J. J. De Waele, “Population pharmacokinetics of continuous infusion of piperacillin in critically ill patients,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 594–600, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Udy, J. Lipman, P. Jarrett et al., “Are standard doses of piperacillin sufficient for critically ill patients with augmented creatinine clearance?” Critical Care, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 28, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Udy, J. M. Varghese, M. Altukroni et al., “Subtherapeutic initial β-lactam concentrations in select critically ill patients,” Chest, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 30–39, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. S. Taccone, F. Cotton, S. Roisin, J.-L. Vincent, and F. Jacobs, “Optimal meropenem concentrations to treat multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa septic shock,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2129–2131, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Fransson, A. Helldén, Å. Balkhed et al., “Case report: subtherapeutic vancomycin and meropenem concentrations due to augmented renal clearance in a patient with intracranial infection caused by Streptococcus intermedius,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 12, Article ID 728075, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Molina, S. T. Hall, J. F. Barletta, A. J. Mangram, J. K. Dzandu, and V. Huang, “Utilization of augmented renal clearance in trauma intensive care scoring system to improve vancomycin dosing in trauma patients at risk for augmented renal clearance,” Surgical Infections, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43–47, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Chu, Y. Luo, L. Qu, C. Zhao, and M. Jiang, “Application of vancomycin in patients with varying renal function, especially those with augmented renal clearance,” Pharmaceutical Biology, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 2802–2806, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Hirai, H. Ishii, T. Shimoshikiryo et al., “Augmented renal clearance in patients with febrile neutropenia is associated with increased risk for subtherapeutic concentrations of vancomycin,” Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 706–710, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Roberts, F. S. Taccone, A. A. Udy, J.-L. Vincent, F. Jacobs, and J. Lipman, “Vancomycin dosing in critically ill patients: robust methods for improved continuous-infusion regimens,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2704–2709, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Baptista, J. A. Roberts, E. Sousa, R. Freitas, N. Deveza, and J. Pimentel, “Decreasing the time to achieve therapeutic vancomycin concentrations in critically ill patients: developing and testing of a dosing nomogram,” Critical Care, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 654, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Li, L. Gao, L. Zhou et al., “Optimal teicoplanin loading regimen to rapidly achieve target trough plasma concentration in critically ill patients,” Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, vol. 126, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ueda, Y. Takesue, K. Nakajima et al., “Clinical efficacy and safety in patients treated with teicoplanin with a target trough concentration of 20 μg/mL using a regimen of 12 mg/kg for five doses within the initial 3 days,” BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 50, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-H. Kim, C.-I. Kang, K. Huh et al., “Evaluating the optimal dose of teicoplanin with therapeutic drug monitoring: not too high for adverse event, not too low for treatment efficacy,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2113–2120, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Byrne, T. Parton, B. McWhinney et al., “Population pharmacokinetics of total and unbound teicoplanin concentrations and dosing simulations in patients with haematological malignancy,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 995–1003, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Cazaubon, N. Venisse, O. Mimoz et al., “Population pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin administered by subcutaneous or intravenous route and simulation of optimal loading dose regimen,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 2804–2812, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Byrne, S. Egan, J. P. Fennell et al., “Teicoplanin use in adult patients with haematological malignancy: exploring relationships between dose, trough concentrations, efficacy and nephrotoxicity,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 406–412, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Nakamura, O. Takasu, Y. Sakai et al., “Development of a teicoplanin loading regimen that rapidly achieves target serum concentrations in critically ill patients with severe infections,” Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 449–455, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Matsumoto, N. Kanazawa, E. Watanabe et al., “Development of initial loading procedure for teicoplanin in critically ill patients with severe infections,” Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1024–1026, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Mimoz, D. Rolland, M. Adoun et al., “Steady-state trough serum and epithelial lining fluid concentrations of teicoplanin 12 mg/kg per day in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 775–779, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Barrasa, A. Soraluce, and E. U. García, “Impact of augmented renal clearance (ARC) on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid: advantages of continuous infusion from a PK/PD perspective,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 93, pp. 329–338, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wang, Y. Wang, and F. Yao, “Pharmacokinetic of linezolid dose adjustment for creatinine clearance in critically ill patients: a multicenter, prospective, open-label, observational study,” Drug Design, Development and Therapy, vol. 15, pp. 2129–2141, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Dou, D. Meng, and Y. Dong, “Dosage regimen and toxicity risk assessment of linezolid in sepsis patients,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Morata, M. Cuesta, J. F. Rojas et al., “Risk factors for a low linezolid trough plasma concentration in acute infections,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1913–1917, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Fujii, T. Karumai, R. Yamamoto et al., “Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in antimicrobial therapy for sepsis,” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 415–430, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aitullina, A. Krūmiņa, Š. Svirskis, and S. Purviņa, “Colistin use in patients with extreme renal function: from dialysis to augmented clearance,” Medicina, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 33, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. L. Nation, S. M. Garonzik, V. Thamlikitkul et al., “Dosing guidance for intravenous colistin in critically-ill patients,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 64, pp. 565–571, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Dalfino, F. Puntillo, M. J. M. Ondok et al., “Colistin-associated acute kidney injury in severely ill patients: a step toward a better renal care? A prospective cohort study,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 1771–1777, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Carrié, F. Delzor, and S. Roure, “Population pharmacokinetic study of the suitability of standard dosing regimens of amikacin in critically ill patients with open-abdomen and negative-pressure wound therapy,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, p. 64, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Najmeddin, A. Ahmadi, and L. Mahmoudi, “Administration of higher doses of amikacin in early stages of sepsis in critically ill patients,” Acta Medica Iranica, pp. 703–709, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
J. A. Roberts, M. O. Cotta, P. Cojutti, M. Lugano, G. D. Rocca, and F. Pea, “Does critical illness change levofloxacin pharmacokinetics?” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1459–1463, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. H. Chen and D. P. Nicolau, “Augmented renal clearance and how to augment antibiotic dosing,” Antibiotics, vol. 9, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Moser, T. Hartvig, J. Schierbeck, and N. Høiby, “Augmented renal clearance of antibiotics may lead to inadequate dosings for patients with sepsis,” Ugeskrift for Laeger, vol. 178, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Udy, J. M. Dulhunty, J. A. Roberts et al., “Association between augmented renal clearance and clinical outcomes in patients receiving β-lactam antibiotic therapy by continuous or intermittent infusion: a nested cohort study of the BLING-II randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 624–630, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Abdul-Aziz, F. Portunato, and J. A. Roberts, “Prolonged infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics for Gram-negative infections: rationale and evidence base,” Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 501–510, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Falcone, A. Russo, M. Venditti, A. Novelli, and M. P. Pai, “Considerations for higher doses of daptomycin in critically ill patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 1568–1576, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. O. M. Claus, E. A. Hoste, K. Colpaert, H. Robays, J. Decruyenaere, and J. J. De Waele, “Augmented renal clearance is a common finding with worse clinical outcome in critically ill patients receiving antimicrobial therapy,” Journal of Critical Care, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 695–700, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. O. Cotta, J. A. Roberts, and J. Lipman, “Antibiotic dose optimization in critically ill patients,” Medicina Intensiva, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 563–572, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Baptista, E. Sousa, P. J. Martins, and J. M. Pimentel, “Augmented renal clearance in septic patients and implications for vancomycin optimisation,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 420–423, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Yoshida, S. Yoshida, H. Okada et al., “Risk factors for decreased teicoplanin trough concentrations during initial dosing in critically ill patients,” Die Pharmazie, vol. 74, pp. 120–124, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Brink, G. A. Richards, R. R. Cummins, and J. Lambson, “Recommendations to achieve rapid therapeutic teicoplanin plasma concentrations in adult hospitalised patients treated for sepsis,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 455–458, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Pea, “Teicoplanin and therapeutic drug monitoring: an update for optimal use in different patient populations,” Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 900–907, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Mimoz, P. Montravers, and J.-A. Paiva, Continuous Administration of Linezolid in Pneumonia: What Is the Level of Proof? Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2015.
A. Sunavala, U. Agrawal, and P. VGala, “Therapeutic drug monitoring for beta-lactams and colistin: is it ready for prime time?” Critical Care Update, p. 36, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
E. J. Owen, G. A. Gibson, and S. A. Buckman, “Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials in critically ill patients,” Surgical Infections, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 155–162, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Moser, C. J. Lerche, K. Thomsen et al., “Antibiotic therapy as personalized medicine - general considerations and complicating factors,” Apmis, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 361–371, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Avedissian, N. Rhodes, and Y. Kim, “Augmented renal clearance using aminoglycoside population-based pharmacokinetic modeling with bayesian estimation in children in the pediatric intensive care unit,” in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, p. S433, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
S. N. Avedissian, N. J. Rhodes, Y. Kim, J. Bradley, J. L Valdez, and J. Le, “Augmented renal clearance of aminoglycosides using population-based pharmacokinetic modelling with Bayesian estimation in the paediatric ICU,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 75, pp. 162–169, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Alobaid, M. Hites, J. Lipman, F. S. Taccone, and J. A. Roberts, “Effect of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of antimicrobials in critically ill patients: a structured review,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 259–268, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Mohammad Sistanizad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1367

Downloads

955

Citations