Ceftriaxone dosing in patients admitted from the emergency department with sepsis

Ceftriaxone 1 g Versus 2 g Daily for the Treatment of Enterobacterales Bacteremia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Ceftriaxone is a commonly used antibiotic for the treatment of susceptible Enterobacterales infections. There is currently limited clinical data on the optimal dose of ceftriaxone for Enterobacterales bacteremia. Objectives: To evaluate the rate of clinical failure of ceftriaxone 1 g versus 2 g daily in patients with Enterobacterales bacteremia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to any of the 3 New York University Hospitals: Long Island, Tisch, or Brooklyn, with ceftriaxone-susceptible Enterobacterales bacteremia, receiving ceftriaxone 1 or 2 g daily from October 2019 to September 2020. The primary outcome was 90-day rate of clinical failure. Clinical failure was defined as escalation of therapy, relapse of infection, or all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 124 patients, 58% in the 1-g group and 42% in the 2-g group, were included. There was no statistically significant difference found in the primary outcome. The 90-day rate of clinical failure was 16.7% versus 9.6%, P = 0.260. There were no statistically significant secondary outcomes, although infection relapse rates at 90 days were numerically greater in the 1-g group (11.1% vs 1.9%, P = 0.078). Hypoalbuminemia was the only variable associated with an increased risk of clinical failure (odds ratio = 4.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-14.50, P = 0.033). Conclusion: In our exploratory findings, there was no statistically significant difference with the 90-day rate of clinical failure between ceftriaxone 1 g versus 2 g daily, although there was a numeric trend toward an increased rate of infection relapse within the 1-g group. Hypoalbuminemia was associated with an increased risk of clinical failure. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Retrospective Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Ceftriaxone 1 g Twice Daily versus 2 g Once Daily for Treatment of Aspiration Pneumonia

Although a 2 g once daily administration of ceftriaxone remains the standard dosing regimen for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia, there are no studies to investigate the optimal dosing method. Hence, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of 1 g twice daily versus 2 g once daily administration of ceftriaxone in adult patients with aspiration pneumonia. Patients who received ceftriaxone for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia between 2015 and 2021 were included in this study. Clinical responses, inflammatory markers, and incidence of adverse events after completion of ceftriaxone therapy were investigated. In total, 33 patients received 1 g twice daily (group 1) and 28 received 2 g once daily (group 2) ceftriaxone for the treatment of mild-to-moderate aspiration pneumonia. Compared with that of group 1, group 2 demonstrated significantly improved clinical responses (group 1 vs. group 2, 84.8% vs. 100%, p = 0.0316). Although the safety profile was not significantly different between the two groups, the incidence of choleliths during ceftriaxone therapy in group 1 was higher than that in group 2 (31.3% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.174). Therefore, a 2 g once daily administration of ceftriaxone appeared to be a simple regimen adequate for the treatment of inpatients with mild-to-moderate aspiration pneumonia, which might not be heavily involved by anaerobes.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment Based on Measured versus Predicted Unbound Ceftriaxone Concentrations in Critically Ill Patients with Pneumonia: An Observational Cohort Study

The impact of ceftriaxone pharmacokinetic alterations on protein binding and PK/PD target attainment still remains unclear. We evaluated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target attainment of unbound ceftriaxone in critically ill patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Besides, we evaluated the accuracy of predicted vs. measured unbound ceftriaxone concentrations, and its impact on PK/PD target attainment. A prospective observational cohort study was carried out in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with severe CAP. Ceftriaxone 2 g q24h intermittent infusion was administered to all patients. Successful PK/PD target attainment was defined as unbound trough concentrations above 1 or 4 mg/L throughout the whole dosing interval. Acceptable overall PK/PD target attainment was defined as successful target attainment in ≥90% of all dosing intervals. Measured unbound ceftriaxone concentrations (CEFu) were compared to unbound concentrations predicted from various protein binding models. Thirty-one patients were included. The 1 mg/L and 4 mg/L targets were reached in 26/32 (81%) and 15/32 (47%) trough samples, respectively. Increased renal function was associated with the failure to attain both PK/PD targets. Unbound ceftriaxone concentrations predicted by the protein binding model developed in the present study showed acceptable bias and precision and had no major impact on PK/PD target attainment. We showed suboptimal (i.e., <90%) unbound ceftriaxone PK/PD target attainment when using a standard 2 g q24h dosing regimen in critically ill patients with severe CAP. Renal function was the major driver for the failure to attain the predefined targets, in accordance with results found in general and septic ICU patients. Interestingly, CEFu was reliably predicted from CEFt without major impact on clinical decisions regarding PK/PD target attainment. This suggests that, when carefully selecting a protein binding model, CEFu does not need to be measured. As a result, the turn-around time and cost for ceftriaxone quantification can be substantially reduced.