Comparison of clinical cure rates in adults with ventilator-associated pneumonia treated with intravenous ceftazidime administered by continuous or intermittent infusion: A retrospective, nonrandomized, open-label, historical chart review (original) (raw)

2007, Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract

Background: 13-Lactam antibiotics are reported to exhibit time-dependent bactericidal activity. However, there are limited data on the clinical efficacy of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (44)

  1. Leu HS, Kaiser DL, Mori M, etal. Hospital-acquired pneu- monia. Attributable mortality and morbidity. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:1258-1267.
  2. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Griffith L, et al, for the Canadian Critical Trials Group. The attributable morbidity and mor- tality of-ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159:1249- 1256.
  3. Bercault N, Boulain N. Mortality rate attributable to ventilator-associated nosocomial pneumonia in an adult intensive care unit: A prospective case-control study. Crit Care Med. 2001 ;29:2303-2309.
  4. Craig CP, Connelly S. Effect of intensive care unit noso- comial pneumonia on duration of-stay and mortality. Am J Infect Control. 1984;12:233-238.
  5. Hanberger H, Garcia-RodriguezJA, Gobernado M, et al, for the French and Portuguese ICU Study Groups. Antibiotic susceptibility among aerobic gram-negative bacilli in inten- sive care units in 5 European countries. JAMA. 1999;281: 67-71.
  6. Drusano GL. Role ofpharmacokinetics in the outcome of infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:289-297.
  7. Vogelrnan B, Gudrnundsson S, LeggettJ, et al. Correlation ofantimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with thera- peutic efficacy in an animal model.J Infect Dis. 1988;I 58: 831-847.
  8. Ebert SC, Craig WA. Pharmacodynamic properties of-an- tibiotics: Application to drug monitoring and dosage regi- men design. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;I 1:319- 326.
  9. CraigWA, Ebert SC. Continuous infusion ofbeta-lactam an- tibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:2577-2583.
  10. Onyeji CO, Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R. Optimal times above MICs of ceftibuten and cefaclor in experimental intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38:1112-1117.
  11. Craig WA. Antibiotic selection factors and description of a hospital-based outpatient antibiotic therapy program in the USA. EurJ Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;14:636-642.
  12. Mouton JW, den Hollander JG. Killing of Pseudomonas aerugmosa during continuous and intermittent infusion of ceftazidime in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Antimi- crob Agents Chemother. 1994;38:931-936.
  13. Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, Banevicius MA, et al. Serum bactericidal activity of ceftazidime: Continuous versus in- termittent injections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996; 40:61-64.
  14. Robaux MA, Dube L, Caillon J, et al. In vivo efficacy of continuous infusion versus intermittent dosing of cef- tazidime alone or in combination with amikacin relative to human kinetic profiles in a Pseudomonas aerugmosa rab- bit endocarditis model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47: 617-622.
  15. Roosendaal R, Bakker-Woudenberg IA, van den BergJC, Michel MF. Therapeutic efficacy of continuous versus in- termittent administration ofceftazidime in an experimen- tal Klebsiella pneumoniae pneumonia in rats. J Infect Dis. 1985;152:373-378.
  16. Lemmen SW, Engels I, Daschner FD. Serum bactericidal activity of ceftazidime administered as continuous infu- sion of 3 g over 24 h versus intermittent bolus infusion of 2 g against Pseudomonas aerugmosa in healthy volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;39:841-842.
  17. Angus BJ, Smith MD, Suputtamongkol Y, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of cef- tazidime continuous infusion vs intermittent bolus injec- tion in septicaemic melioidosis. BrJ Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 50:184-191.
  18. Benko AS, Cappelletty DM, Kruse JA, Rybak MJ. Continuous infusion vs intermittent administration of ceftazidime in critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infec- tions. Antimicrob Agents Ckemotker. 1996;40:691-695.
  19. BuiikSL , Gyssens IC, MoutonJW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ceffazidime in serum and peritoneal exudate during continuous versus intermit- tent administration to patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Ckemotker. 2002;49:121- 128.
  20. Lipman J, Gomersall CD, Gin T, et al. Continuous infusion ceftazidime in intensive care: A randomized con- trolled trial. J Antimicrob Ckemotker. 1999;43:309-311.
  21. Nicolau DP, McNabbJ, Lacy MK, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharma- codynamics of continuous and in- termittent ceftazidime during the treatment of nosocomial pneumo- nia. Clin Drug Invest. 1999;18:133- 139.
  22. Cousson J, Floch T, Vernet-Garnier V, et al. Pharmacodynamic interest of ceftazidime continuous infusion vs intermittent bolus administration in patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia [in French]. Patkol Biol (Paris,). 2005;53:546-550.
  23. Alou L, Aguilar L, Sevillano D, et al. Is there a pharmacodynamic need for the use of continuous versus in- termittent infusion with ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aerugmosa? An in vitro pharmacodynamic model. J Antimicrob Ckemotker. 2005;55:209- 213.
  24. Girardi C, Tonnellier M, Goldstein I, et al, for the Experimental ICU Study Group. Lung deposition of continu- ous and intermittent intravenous ceftazidime in experimental Pseudo- monas aerugmosa bronchopneumo- nia. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32: 2042-2048.
  25. Daenen S, de Vries-Hospers H. Cure of Pseudomonas aerugmosa infection in neutropenic patients by continuous infusion of ceftazidime. Lancet. 1988;1:937. Letter.
  26. VinksAA, Brimicombe RW, Heijerman HG, Bakker W. Continuous infusion of ceffazidime in cystic fibrosis patients during home treatment: Clinical out- come, microbiology and pharmacoki- netics. J Antimicrob Ckemotker. 1997;40: 125-133.
  27. Hanes SD, Wood GC, Herring V, et al. Intermittent and continuous cef- tazidime infusion for critically ill trau- ma patients. Am J Surg. 2000;179: 436-440.
  28. McNabb J J, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R, Nicolau DP. Cost- effectiveness of ceftazidime by con- tinuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia. Pharmacotherapy. 2001 ;21:549-555.
  29. Laghzaoui F, Murcia J, Llorens P, Portilla J. Continuous ceftazidime infusion in the treatment of Pseudo- monas aeruginosa infections in a Hospital at Home Unit [in Spanish].
  30. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2007; 25:71-72. Letter.
  31. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16:31-41.
  32. VincentJL, Moreno R, TakalaJ, et al, for the Working Group on Sepsis- related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. The Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707-710.
  33. Walker SE, Dranitsaris G. Ceffazi- dime stability in normal saline and dextrose in water. CanJ Hosp Pkarm. 1988;41:65-66.
  34. Viaene E, Chanteux H, Servais H, et al. Comparative stability studies of antipseudomonal beta-lactams for potential administration through portable elastomeric pumps (home therapy for cystic fibrosis patients) and motor-operated syringes (inten- sive care units). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:2327-2332.
  35. Zhou M, Notari RE. Influence of pH, temperature, and buffers on the kinetics of ceffazidime degradation in aqueous solutions. J Pharm Sci. 1995;84:534-538.
  36. Gupta VD, Bethea Ch, de la Torre M. Chemical stabilities of cefopera- zone sodium and ceftazidime in 5% dextrose and 0.9% sodium chloride injections. J Clin Pkarm Ther. 1988; 13:199-205.
  37. Nicolau DP, Freeman CD, Belliveau PP, et al. Experience with a once-daily aminoglycoside program adminis- tered to 2,184 adult patients. Anti- microb Agents Ckemotker. 1995;39: 650-655.
  38. Simon G. Alternative analyses forthe singly-ordered contingency table. J Am Star Assoc. 1974;69:971-976.
  39. Mehta C, Patel N. Singly ordered RX C contingency tables. In: Mehta C, Patel N, eds. StatXact 5. Cambridge, Mass: Cytel Software Co; 2001:765-785.
  40. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Assessing interaction and confounding. In: Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1989:63-68.
  41. Kleinbaum DG. Modeling strategy for assessing interaction and con- founding. In: Loglstic Regression. A Self Learning Text. New York, NY: Spri nger; 1994:192-221.
  42. LangTA, Secic M. Analyzing multiple variables. In: How to Report Statistics in Medicine. Philadelphia, Pa: American College of Physicians; 1997;127-135.
  43. Lorente L, Lorenzo L, Martin MM, et al. Meropenem by continuous versus intermittent infusion in ventilator- associated pneumonia due to gram- negative bacilli. Ann Pkarmacotker. 2006;40:219-223.
  44. Address correspondence to: Leonardo Lorente, MD, PhD, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias Ofra s/n, La Cuesta, La Laguna 38320, Tenerife, Spain. E-maih lorentemartin@msn.com