Download PDF
Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 28(6): 579-585
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-996404
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Optimizing Use of β-Lactam Antibiotics in the Critically Ill

Jason A. Roberts1 , 2 , 3 , Jeffrey Lipman1 , 2
  • 1Burns Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • 2Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
  • 3Pharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 December 2007 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The escalation of serious infections in critically ill patients over the past 25 years has continued despite advances in contemporary medicine. Ongoing research to reduce the high morbidity and mortality rates is mandated. β-lactam antibiotics are often used empirically in serious infections. The efficacy of these time-dependent antibiotics is correlated with the time that concentrations are maintained above the minimum inhibitory concentration of the infective pathogen. In critically ill patients, pathophysiological changes can reduce antibiotic concentrations and thus alternative modes of administration such as continuous infusion have been studied and shown to standardize β-lactam pharmacokinetics and meet pharmacodynamic targets. Clinical data supporting the efficacy of continuous infusion are currently scarce, but data continue to grow. Likewise antibiotic resistance continues to grow. Recent data suggest that poor dosing strategies may be contributing to this problem, which is exacerbated by a lack of development of alternate antibiotics. Suffice to say clinicians must use antibiotic regimens that optimally treat the individual patient and reduce the development of antibiotic resistance.

KEYWORDS

β-lactam - continuous infusion - critically ill - antibiotics - resistance

REFERENCES

  • 1 Marshall J C. Inflammation, coagulopathy, and the pathogenesis of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.  Crit Care Med. 2001;  29 S99-S106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rice T W, Bernard G R. Therapeutic intervention and targets for sepsis.  Annu Rev Med. 2005;  56 225-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Roberts J A, Lipman J. Antibiotic dosing in intensive care: pharmacokinetics, degree of disease and pharmacodynamics of sepsis.  Clin Pharmacokinet. 2006;  45 755-773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Garnacho-Montero J, Garnacho-Montero C, Cayuela A, Ortiz-Leyba C. Timing of adequate antibiotic therapy is more determinant of outcome than TNF and IL-10 polymorphisms in septic patients.  Crit Care. 2006;  10 R111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Talbot G H, Bradley J, Edwards Jr. J E, Gilbert D, Scheld M, Bartlett J G. Bad bugs need drugs: an update on the development pipeline from the Antimicrobial Availability Task Force of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.  Clin Infect Dis. 2006;  42 657-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Roberts J A, Boots R, Rickard C M et al.. Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;  59 285-291
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ali M Z, Goetz M B. A meta-analysis of the relative efficacy and toxicity of single daily dosing versus multiple daily dosing of aminoglycosides.  Clin Infect Dis. 1997;  24 796-809
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bailey T C, Little J R, Littenberg B, Reichley R M, Dunagan W C. A meta-analysis of extended-interval dosing versus multiple daily dosing of aminoglycosides.  Clin Infect Dis. 1997;  24 786-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wysocki M, Delatour F, Faurisson F. Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections: prospective multicenter randomized study.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;  45 2460-2467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Olofsson S K, Marcusson L L, Komp Lindgren P et al.. Selection of ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli in an in vitro kinetic model: relation between drug exposure and mutant prevention concentration.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;  57 1116-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tam V H, Schilling A N, Neshat S, Poole K, Melnick D A, Coyle E A. Optimization of meropenem minimum concentration/MIC ratio to suppress in vitro resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa .  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;  49 4920-4927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thomas J K, Forrest A, Bhavnani S M et al.. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;  42 521-527
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Roosendaal R, Bakker-Woudenberg I A, Van den Berghe J C, van Raafe M, Michel M F. Continuous versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in experimental Klebsiella pneumoniae pneumonia in normal and leukopenic rats.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986;  30 403-408
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Olofsson S K, Geli P, Andersson D I, Cars O. Pharmacodynamic model to describe the concentration-dependent selection of cefotaxime-resistant Escherichia coli .  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;  49 5081-5091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gugel J, Dos Santos Pereira A, Pignatari A C, Gales A C. Beta-Lactam MICs correlate poorly with mutant prevention concentrations for clinical isolates of Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa .  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;  50 2276-2277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Firsov A A, Smirnova M V, Lubenko I Y, Vostrov S N, Portnoy Y A, Zinner S H. Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with Staphylococcus aureus exposed to daptomycin and vancomycin in an in vitro dynamic model.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;  58 1185-1192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tsuji B, Rybak M. The influence of Staphylococcus aureus accessory gene regulator function on the development of glycopeptide hetero-resistance in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. moxifloxacin. In: 15th European Congress on Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Copenhagen; Blackwell Publishing 2005: P-1590
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Craig W. Pharmacokinetic and experimental data on beta-lactam antibiotics in the treatment of patients.  Eur J Clin Microbiol. 1984;  3 575-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Craig W A. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men.  Clin Infect Dis. 1998;  26 1-10 quiz 11-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Craig W A. Basic pharmacodynamics of antibacterials with clinical applications to the use of beta-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid.  Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2003;  17 479-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Turnidge J D. The pharmacodynamics of beta-lactams.  Clin Infect Dis. 1998;  27 10-22
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Drusano G L. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: critical interactions of “bug and drug”.  Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;  2 289-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vogelman B, Craig W A. Kinetics of antimicrobial activity.  J Pediatr. 1986;  108 835-840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vogelman B, Gudmundsson S, Leggett J, Turnidge J, Ebert S, Craig W A. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model.  J Infect Dis. 1988;  158 831-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vogelman B S, Craig W A. Postantibiotic effects.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985;  15(Suppl A) 37-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bakker-Woudenberg I A, Roosendaal R. Impact of dosage schedule of antibiotics on the treatment of serious infections.  Intensive Care Med. 1990;  16(Suppl 3) S229-S234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Leggett J E, Fantin B, Ebert S. Comparative antibiotic dose-effect relations at several dosing intervals in murine pneumonitis and thigh-infection models.  J Infect Dis. 1989;  159 281-292
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schentag J J, Smith I L, Swanson D J et al.. Role for dual individualization with cefmenoxime.  Am J Med. 1984;  77 43-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mouton J W, Vinks A A, Punt N C. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of activity of ceftazidime during continuous and intermittent infusion.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;  41 733-738
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mouton J W, den Hollander J G. Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa during continuous and intermittent infusion of ceftazidime in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;  38 931-936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nuytinck H K, Offermans X J, Kubat K, Goris J A. Whole-body inflammation in trauma patients: an autopsy study.  Arch Surg. 1988;  123 1519-1524
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gosling P, Sanghera K, Dickson G. Generalized vascular permeability and pulmonary function in patients following serious trauma.  J Trauma. 1994;  36 477-481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Joukhadar C, Frossard M, Mayer B X et al.. Impaired target site penetration of beta-lactams may account for therapeutic failure in patients with septic shock.  Crit Care Med. 2001;  29 385-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Parrillo J E, Parker M M, Natanson C et al.. Septic shock in humans: advances in the understanding of pathogenesis, cardiovascular dysfunction, and therapy.  Ann Intern Med. 1990;  113 227-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Parrillo J E. Pathogenetic mechanisms of septic shock.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  328 1471-1477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pea F, Porreca L, Baraldo M, Furlanut M. High vancomycin dosage regimens required by intensive care unit patients cotreated with drugs to improve haemodynamics following cardiac surgical procedures.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;  45 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Di Giantomasso D, May C N, Bellomo R. Norepinephrine and vital organ blood flow.  Intensive Care Med. 2002;  28 1804-1809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Di Giantomasso D, May C N, Bellomo R. Norepinephrine and vital organ blood flow during experimental hyperdynamic sepsis.  Intensive Care Med. 2003;  29 1774-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Di Giantomasso D, Bellomo R, May C N. The haemodynamic and metabolic effects of epinephrine in experimental hyperdynamic septic shock.  Intensive Care Med. 2005;  31 454-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Livornese L L, Slavin D, Benz R L, Ingerman M J, Santoro J. Use of antibacterial agents in renal failure.  Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2001;  15 983-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Livornese L L, Slavin D, Gilbert B, Robbins P, Santoro J. Use of antibacterial agents in renal failure.  Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2004;  18 551-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Trotman R L, Williamson J C, Shoemaker D M, Salzer W L. Antibiotic dosing in critically ill adult patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy.  Clin Infect Dis. 2005;  41 1159-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Roberts J A, Paratz J D, Paratz E, Krueger W A, Lipman J. Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe infections: a review of its role.  Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;  30 11-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Lipman J, Wallis S C, Rickard C M, Fraenkel D. Low cefpirome levels during twice daily dosing in critically ill septic patients: pharmacokinetic modelling calls for more frequent dosing.  Intensive Care Med. 2001;  27 363-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lipman J, Wallis S C, Rickard C. Low plasma cefepime levels in critically ill septic patients: pharmacokinetic modeling indicates improved troughs with revised dosing.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;  43 2559-2561
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lodise Jr T P, Lomaestro B, Drusano G L. Piperacillin-tazobactam for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: clinical implications of an extended-infusion dosing strategy.  Clin Infect Dis. 2007;  44 357-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Roos J F, Bulitta J, Lipman J, Kirkpatrick C M. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic rationale for cefepime dosing regimens in intensive care units.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;  58 987-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Benko A S, Cappelletty D M, Kruse J A, Rybak M J. Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infections.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;  40 691-695
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Buijk S L, Gyssens I C, Mouton J W, Van Vliet A, Verbrugh H A, Bruining H A. Pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime in serum and peritoneal exudate during continuous versus intermittent administration to patients with severe intra-abdominal infections.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002;  49 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hanes S D, Wood G C, Herring V et al.. Intermittent and continuous ceftazidime infusion for critically ill trauma patients.  Am J Surg. 2000;  179 436-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Roberts J A, Roberts M S, Dalley A, Cross S E, Lipman J. Exposure and predicted antimicrobial efficacy in critically ill patients: piperacillin. Paper presented at: Queensland Branch Conference, Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia October 20-22, 2006 Brisbane, Australia;
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S, Ingviya N. Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of cefepime in patients with gram-negative bacilli bacteraemia.  J Pharm Pharmacol. 2002;  54 1693-1696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lipman J, Gomersall C D, Gin T, Joynt G M, Young R J. Continuous infusion ceftazidime in intensive care: a randomized controlled trial.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;  43 309-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Young R J, Lipman J, Gin T, Gomersall C D, Joynt G M, Oh T E. Intermittent bolus dosing of ceftazidime in critically ill patients.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;  40 269-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Boselli E, Breilh D, Rimmele T et al.. Plasma and lung concentrations of ceftazidime administered in continuous infusion to critically ill patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia.  Intensive Care Med. 2004;  30 989-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Alou L, Aguilar L, Sevillano D et al.. Is there a pharmacodynamic need for the use of continuous versus intermittent infusion with ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa? An in vitro pharmacodynamic model.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;  55 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mariat C, Venet C, Jehl F et al.. Continuous infusion of ceftazidime in critically ill patients undergoing continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration: pharmacokinetic evaluation and dose recommendation.  Crit Care. 2006;  10 R26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Rafati M R, Rouini M R, Mojtahedzadeh M et al.. Clinical efficacy of continuous infusion of piperacillin compared with intermittent dosing in septic critically ill patients.  Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006;  28 122-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Tam V H, Louie A, Lomaestro B M, Drusano G L. Integration of population pharmacokinetics, a pharmacodynamic target, and microbiologic surveillance data to generate a rational empiric dosing strategy for cefepime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa .  Pharmacotherapy. 2003;  23 291-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Georges B, Conil J M, Cougot P et al.. Cefepime in critically ill patients: continuous infusion vs. an intermittent dosing regimen.  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;  43 360-369
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Angus B J, Smith M D, Suputtamongkol Y et al.. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of ceftazidime continuous infusion vs intermittent bolus injection in septicaemic melioidosis.  Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;  50 184-191
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Lau W K, Mercer D, Itani K M et al.. Randomized, open-label, comparative study of piperacillin-tazobactam administered by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;  50 3556-3561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Lorente L, Lorenzo L, Martin M M, Jimenez A, Mora M L. Meropenem by continuous versus intermittent infusion in ventilator-associated pneumonia due to gram-negative bacilli.  Ann Pharmacother. 2006;  40 219-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 McNabb J J, Nightingale C H, Quintiliani R, Nicolau D P. Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia.  Pharmacotherapy. 2001;  21 549-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Buijs J, Dofferhoff A SM, Mouton J W, van der Meer J WM. Continuous administration of PBP-2- and PBP-3-specific beta-lactams causes higher cytokine responses in murine Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli sepsis.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;  59 926-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Wiedemann B. An international perspective on antimicrobial resistance.  Am J Med. 1995;  99 19S-20S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Fantin B, Ebert S, Leggett J, Vogelman B, Craig W A. Factors affecting duration of in-vivo postantibiotic effect for aminoglycosides against gram-negative bacilli.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;  27 829-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Odenholt I, Gustafsson I, Lowdin E, Cars O. Suboptimal antibiotic dosage as a risk factor for selection of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: in vitro kinetic model.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;  47 518-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Jeffrey LipmanM.D. 

Burns Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, Level 3 Ned Hanlon Bldg., Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital

Butterfield St., Herston QLD 4029, Brisbane, Australia

Email: j.lipman@uq.edu.au

      >