Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sequential intravenous and subcutaneous teicoplanin in critically ill patients without vasopressors (original) (raw)

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Objective

To compare the pharmacokinetic parameters of sequential intravenous and subcutaneous teicoplanin in the plasma of surgical intensive care unit patients.

Design and setting

Prospective, randomized, crossover study in the surgical ICU of a university hospital.

Patients

Twelve patients with a suspected nosocomial infection, a serum albumin level higher than 10 g/l, body mass index less than 28 kg/m2, and estimated creatinine clearance higher than 70 ml/min.

Interventions

Teicoplanin was first administered intravenously as a loading dose of 6 mg/kg per 12 h for 48 h and then continued at a daily dose of 6 mg/kg. On the fourth day patients were randomized in two groups according to the order of the pharmacokinetic studies.

Measurements and results

Serial plasma samples were obtained to measure teicoplanin levels. Compared with a 30-min intravenous infusion the peak concentration of teicoplanin after a 30-min subcutaneous administration occurred later (median 7 h, range 5–18) and was lower (16 µg/ml, 9–31; vs. 73, 53–106). Despite large and unpredictable interindividual differences no significant differences between subcutaneous and intravenous administration were observed in: trough antibiotic concentrations (10 µg/ml, 6–24; vs. 9, 5–30), the area under the teicoplanin plasma concentration vs. time curves from 0 to 24 h (AUC0–24h; 309 µg/ml per minute, 180–640; vs. 369, 171–955), the proportion of the dosing interval during which the plasma teicoplanin concentration exceeded 10 µg/ml (96%, 0–100%; vs. 79%, 13–100%), and the ratio of AUC0–24h to 10 (77, 45–160; vs. 92, 43–239).

Conclusions

In critically ill patients without vasopressors a switch to the subcutaneous teicoplanin after an initial intravenous therapy seems to give comparable pharmacodynamic indexes of therapeutic success.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Karchmer AW (2000) Nosocomial bloodstream infections: organisms, risk factors, and implications. Clin Infect Dis 31 Suppl 4:S139–S143
    Google Scholar
  2. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, Bruining HA, White J, Nicolas-Chanoine MH, Wolff M, Spencer RC, Hemmer M (1995) The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe. Results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study. EPIC International Advisory Committee. JAMA 274:639–644
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  3. Johnson AP, James D, Livermore DM (1999) Increasing prevalence of methicillin resistance amongst Staphylococcus aureus blood culture isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 43:160
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Struelens MJ (1998) The epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in hospital acquired infections: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 317:652–654
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  5. Wood MJ (1996) The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 37:209–222
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  6. Antony KK, Lewis EW, Kenny MT, Dulworth JK, Brackman MB, Kuzma R, Yuh L, Eller MG, Thompson GA (1991) Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of a new formulation of teicoplanin following intravenous and intramuscular administration to humans. J Pharm Sci 80:605–607
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH (1976) Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16:31–41
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 270:2957–2963
    PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Brogden RN, Peters DH (1994) Teicoplanin. A reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 47:823–854
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Lortholary O, Tod M, Rizzo N, Padoin C, Biard O, Casassus P, Guillevin L, Petitjean O (1996) Population pharmacokinetic study of teicoplanin in severely neutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40:1242–1247
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Charbonneau P, Harding I, Garaud JJ, Aubertin J, Brunet F, Domart Y (1994) Teicoplanin: a well-tolerated and easily administered alternative to vancomycin for gram-positive infections in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 20 Suppl 4:S35–S42
    Google Scholar
  12. Amrein C, Hillaire-Buys D, Guillemain R, Taburet AM, Vulser C, Despeaux E, Singlas E (1992) Teicoplanin can be administered by subcutaneous route. 32e Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Anaheim
  13. van Dalen R, Vree TB (1990) Pharmacokinetics of antibiotics in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med16 [Suppl 3]:S235–S238
  14. Assandri A, Bernareggi A (1987) Binding of teicoplanin to human serum albumin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 33:191–195
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Mimoz O, Binter V, Jacolot A, Edouard AR, Tod M, Petitjean O, Samii K (1998) Pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of ciprofloxacin administered through a nasogastric tube with continuous enteral feeding to critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 24:1047–1051
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Jacolot A, Incagnoli P, Edouard AR, Tod M, Petitjean O, Samii K, Mimoz O (1999) Pharmacokinetics of cefpirome during the posttraumatic systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Intensive Care Med 25:486–491
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  17. Mimoz O, Soreda S, Padoin C, Tod M, Petitjean O, Benhamou D (2000) Ceftriaxone pharmacokinetics during iatrogenic hydroxyethyl starch-induced hypoalbuminemia: a model to explore the effects of decreased protein binding capacity on highly-bound drugs. Anesthesiology 93:735–743
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Mimoz O, Schaeffer V, Incagnoli P, Louchahi K, Edouard A, Petitjean O, Tod M (2001) Amoxicillin-clavulanate pharmacokinetics during post-traumatic hemorrhagic shock. Crit Care Med 29:1350–1355
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Craig WA (1998) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antimicrobial dosing in mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 26:1–12
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  20. Amrein C, Atlani C, Ghirardi L (1997) Teicoplanine par voie sous-cutanée: résultats d'une étude multicentrique rétrospective. 17e Réunion Interdisciplinaire de Chimiothérapie Anti-Infectieuse, Paris, France
  21. Tegeder I, Schmidtko A, Brautigam L, Kirschbaum A, Geisslinger G, Lotsch J (2002) Tissue distribution of imipenem in critically ill patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 71:325–333
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  22. Joukhadar C, Frossard M, Mayer BX, Brunner M, Klein N, Siostrzonek P, Eichler HG, Muller M (2001) Impaired target site penetration of beta-lactams may account for therapeutic failure in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med 29:385–391
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  23. Lesne-Hulin A, Bourget P, Le Bever H, Ainaud P, Carsin H (1997) Therapeutic monitoring of teicoplanin in a severely burned patient. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 16:374–347
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  24. Wilson AP (2000) Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet 39:167–183
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  25. Dorffler-Melly J, de Jonge E, Pont AC, Meijers J, Vroom MB, Buller HR, Levi M (2002) Bioavailability of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin to patients on vasopressors. Lancet 359:849–850
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation Chirurgicale, Centre Hospitalier et Universitaire, Cité de la Milétrie, 86021, Poitiers Cedex, France
    A. Barbot, N. Venisse, F. Rayeh, S. Bouquet, B. Debaene & O. Mimoz

Authors

  1. A. Barbot
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. N. Venisse
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. F. Rayeh
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. S. Bouquet
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. B. Debaene
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  6. O. Mimoz
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toO. Mimoz.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barbot, A., Venisse, N., Rayeh, F. et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sequential intravenous and subcutaneous teicoplanin in critically ill patients without vasopressors.Intensive Care Med 29, 1528–1534 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-1859-z

Download citation

Keywords