Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of ceftazidime/avibactam and optimize dosing regimens in patients with severe intra-abdominal infection (sIAI) receiving continuous veno–venous hemofiltration (CVVH).</p> Methods <p>Seven patients with sIAI treated with ceftazidime/avibactam and CVVH were enrolled. Blood samples were collected at pre-dose and post-dose (2, 3, 4, 6, and 8&#xa0;h) during hemodynamic stability. Plasma concentrations were measured, and PK parameters were calculated. Monte Carlo simulations (MCSs) were used to assess the probability of target attainment (PTA) and cumulative fraction of response (CFR) for different dosing regimens.</p> Results <p>CVVH increased the clearance (CL) significantly (ceftazidime: 2.46 ± 0.29 vs. 0.9 ± 0.11&#xa0;L/h; avibactam: 2.89 ± 0.41 vs. 1.09 ± 0.08&#xa0;L/h, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). For the target of 100%fT ≥ MIC (ceftazidime) + 100%fT ≥ C<sub>T = 1.0 mg/L</sub> (avibactam), during CVVH, PTA &gt; 90% at MIC ≤ 8&#xa0;mg/L. Outside CVVH, PTA &gt; 90% at MIC ≤ 16&#xa0;mg/L, and only 3000&#xa0;mg + 750&#xa0;mg q8h achieved PTA &gt; 90% at MIC = 64&#xa0;mg/L. For the target of 100%fT ≥ 4× MIC + 100%fT ≥ C<sub>T = 4.0 mg/L</sub>, during CVVH, PTA &gt; 90% at MIC ≤ 2&#xa0;mg/L. Outside CVVH, PTA &gt; 90% at MIC ≤ 4&#xa0;mg/L, and only 3000&#xa0;mg + 750&#xa0;mg q8h achieved PTA &gt; 90% at MIC = 16&#xa0;mg/L. No regimen met the optimal dosing criteria for this target.</p> Conclusion <p>CVVH enhanced the CL significantly. Dosing should be “individualized” based on the MIC and patient-specific factors.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

PK/PD study of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections treated by continuous veno–venous hemofiltration

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月14日

查看全文
  • Sai Tian,
  • Yong Chen,
  • Mingjie Qiu,
  • Wenqi Wu,
  • Liuqing Dou,
  • Jiajie Wang,
  • Li Xu,
  • Zhitao Zhou,
  • Meilin Wu,
  • Jiayang Li,
  • Xiuwen Wu,
  • Jianan Ren

摘要

Purpose

To investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of ceftazidime/avibactam and optimize dosing regimens in patients with severe intra-abdominal infection (sIAI) receiving continuous veno–venous hemofiltration (CVVH).

Methods

Seven patients with sIAI treated with ceftazidime/avibactam and CVVH were enrolled. Blood samples were collected at pre-dose and post-dose (2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 h) during hemodynamic stability. Plasma concentrations were measured, and PK parameters were calculated. Monte Carlo simulations (MCSs) were used to assess the probability of target attainment (PTA) and cumulative fraction of response (CFR) for different dosing regimens.

Results

CVVH increased the clearance (CL) significantly (ceftazidime: 2.46 ± 0.29 vs. 0.9 ± 0.11 L/h; avibactam: 2.89 ± 0.41 vs. 1.09 ± 0.08 L/h, p < 0.001). For the target of 100%fT ≥ MIC (ceftazidime) + 100%fT ≥ CT = 1.0 mg/L (avibactam), during CVVH, PTA > 90% at MIC ≤ 8 mg/L. Outside CVVH, PTA > 90% at MIC ≤ 16 mg/L, and only 3000 mg + 750 mg q8h achieved PTA > 90% at MIC = 64 mg/L. For the target of 100%fT ≥ 4× MIC + 100%fT ≥ CT = 4.0 mg/L, during CVVH, PTA > 90% at MIC ≤ 2 mg/L. Outside CVVH, PTA > 90% at MIC ≤ 4 mg/L, and only 3000 mg + 750 mg q8h achieved PTA > 90% at MIC = 16 mg/L. No regimen met the optimal dosing criteria for this target.

Conclusion

CVVH enhanced the CL significantly. Dosing should be “individualized” based on the MIC and patient-specific factors.