{"title":"利奈唑胺在重症患者中的药代动力学:持续输注与间歇输注的对比。","authors":"Ligia-Ancuța Hui, Constantin Bodolea, Adina Popa, Ana-Maria Vlase, Elisabeta Ioana Hirișcău, Laurian Vlase","doi":"10.3390/antibiotics13100961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Linezolid has been found to have considerable interindividual variability, especially in critically ill patients, which can lead to suboptimal plasma concentration. To overcome this shortcoming, several solutions have been proposed. These include using loading dose, higher maintenance doses, and dose stratification according to the patient's particularities, therapeutic drug monitoring, and drug administration via continuous infusion (CI) instead of intermittent infusion (II). In the present study, we aim to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of linezolid after administration as II versus CI to critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a prospective study conducted in an intensive care unit, we compared the same two daily doses of linezolid administered via II versus CI. The serum concentration was measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices for efficacy chosen were area under the concentration-time curve at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration over 80 (AUC24-48/MIC > 80).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Greater serum concentration variability was observed in the II group than in the CI group. The %T > MIC > 80% was achieved for MICs of 1 and 2 µg/mL 100% of the time, whereas for the II group, this was 93% and 73%, respectively. AUC24-48/MIC > 80 was reached in 100% of cases in the CI group compared with 87% in the II group for a MIC of 1 µg/mL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The two infusion methods may be used comparably, but utilizing CI as an alternative to II may have potential benefits, including avoiding periods of suboptimal concentrations, which may enhance safety profiles and clinical outcomes. Considering the relatively few studies performed on linezolid to date, which are increasing in number, the results of the present study may be of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":54246,"journal":{"name":"Antibiotics-Basel","volume":"13 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11504488/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linezolid Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients: Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion.\",\"authors\":\"Ligia-Ancuța Hui, Constantin Bodolea, Adina Popa, Ana-Maria Vlase, Elisabeta Ioana Hirișcău, Laurian Vlase\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/antibiotics13100961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Linezolid has been found to have considerable interindividual variability, especially in critically ill patients, which can lead to suboptimal plasma concentration. To overcome this shortcoming, several solutions have been proposed. These include using loading dose, higher maintenance doses, and dose stratification according to the patient's particularities, therapeutic drug monitoring, and drug administration via continuous infusion (CI) instead of intermittent infusion (II). In the present study, we aim to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of linezolid after administration as II versus CI to critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a prospective study conducted in an intensive care unit, we compared the same two daily doses of linezolid administered via II versus CI. The serum concentration was measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices for efficacy chosen were area under the concentration-time curve at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration over 80 (AUC24-48/MIC > 80).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Greater serum concentration variability was observed in the II group than in the CI group. The %T > MIC > 80% was achieved for MICs of 1 and 2 µg/mL 100% of the time, whereas for the II group, this was 93% and 73%, respectively. AUC24-48/MIC > 80 was reached in 100% of cases in the CI group compared with 87% in the II group for a MIC of 1 µg/mL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The two infusion methods may be used comparably, but utilizing CI as an alternative to II may have potential benefits, including avoiding periods of suboptimal concentrations, which may enhance safety profiles and clinical outcomes. Considering the relatively few studies performed on linezolid to date, which are increasing in number, the results of the present study may be of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antibiotics-Basel\",\"volume\":\"13 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11504488/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antibiotics-Basel\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100961\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antibiotics-Basel","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100961","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:研究发现,利奈唑胺的个体差异很大,尤其是在重症患者中,这会导致血浆浓度不达标。为了克服这一缺陷,人们提出了几种解决方案。其中包括使用负荷剂量、更高的维持剂量、根据患者的特殊情况进行剂量分层、治疗药物监测以及通过持续输注(CI)而非间歇输注(II)给药。在本研究中,我们旨在比较利奈唑胺在重症患者中以 II 和 CI 方式给药后的药代动力学(PK)参数:在重症监护病房进行的一项前瞻性研究中,我们比较了通过 II 和 CI 给药的两种利奈唑胺的相同日剂量。测量血清浓度并计算药代动力学参数。选择的药代动力学/药效学(PK/PD)疗效指数为稳态浓度-时间曲线下面积除以超过 80 的最小抑制浓度(AUC24-48/MIC > 80):与 CI 组相比,II 组的血清浓度变化更大。当 MIC 为 1 和 2 µg/mL 时,100% 的时间都能达到 %T > MIC > 80%,而 II 组分别为 93% 和 73%。在 MIC 为 1 µg/mL 的情况下,CI 组 100%达到 AUC24-48/MIC > 80,而 II 组为 87%:这两种输注方法的使用效果相当,但使用 CI 作为 II 组的替代方法可能会带来潜在的好处,包括避免出现亚理想浓度期,这可能会提高安全性和临床效果。考虑到迄今为止对利奈唑胺进行的研究相对较少,而且数量还在不断增加,本研究的结果可能会引起人们的兴趣。
Linezolid Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients: Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion.
Background: Linezolid has been found to have considerable interindividual variability, especially in critically ill patients, which can lead to suboptimal plasma concentration. To overcome this shortcoming, several solutions have been proposed. These include using loading dose, higher maintenance doses, and dose stratification according to the patient's particularities, therapeutic drug monitoring, and drug administration via continuous infusion (CI) instead of intermittent infusion (II). In the present study, we aim to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of linezolid after administration as II versus CI to critically ill patients.
Methods: In a prospective study conducted in an intensive care unit, we compared the same two daily doses of linezolid administered via II versus CI. The serum concentration was measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices for efficacy chosen were area under the concentration-time curve at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration over 80 (AUC24-48/MIC > 80).
Results: Greater serum concentration variability was observed in the II group than in the CI group. The %T > MIC > 80% was achieved for MICs of 1 and 2 µg/mL 100% of the time, whereas for the II group, this was 93% and 73%, respectively. AUC24-48/MIC > 80 was reached in 100% of cases in the CI group compared with 87% in the II group for a MIC of 1 µg/mL.
Conclusions: The two infusion methods may be used comparably, but utilizing CI as an alternative to II may have potential benefits, including avoiding periods of suboptimal concentrations, which may enhance safety profiles and clinical outcomes. Considering the relatively few studies performed on linezolid to date, which are increasing in number, the results of the present study may be of interest.
Antibiotics-BaselPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
14.60%
发文量
1547
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍:
Antibiotics (ISSN 2079-6382) is an open access, peer reviewed journal on all aspects of antibiotics. Antibiotics is a multi-disciplinary journal encompassing the general fields of biochemistry, chemistry, genetics, microbiology and pharmacology. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. Therefore, there is no restriction on the length of papers.