Inadequate antibiotic dosing in patients receiving sustained low efficiency dialysis

Vancomycin administration and AUC/MIC in patients with acute kidney injury on hemodialysis (HD): randomized clinical trial

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of vancomycin change during HD, increasing the risk of subtherapeutic concentrations. The aim of this study was to evaluate during and after the conventional and prolonged hemodialysis sessions to identify the possible risk of the patient remaining without adequate antimicrobial coverage during therapy. Randomized, non-blind clinical trial, including critically ill adults with septic AKI on conventional (4 h) and prolonged HD (6 and 10 h) and using vancomycin for at least 72 h. Sessions were analyzed and randomized into three groups (G): control (C), dose of 15 mg/kg after session), intervention (I) 2 h (dose of 7.5 mg/kg in the second hour and 7.5 mg/kg after) and IG continuous infusion (dose of 30 mg/kg in 24 h). Of the 316 patients recruited, 87 were randomized, and 174 HD sessions were monitored. For the analysis, 28 sessions belonged to the CG, 47 to the 2-hour IG, and 31 to the continuous IG. The groups were similar in age, weight, severity scores, use of nephrotoxins, sérum albumin, Kt/V, HD modality, ultrafiltration, and intradialytic intercurrences. The intervention groups showed a higher therapeutic concentration frequency than the control group (p < 0.002). The initial concentration was identified as a risk factor (OR 1.16, p = 0.001) for a non-therapeutic vancomycin concentration in the logistic regression. In contrast, the 2-hour IG was identified as a protective factor (OR 0.24, p = 0.04). Administration of vancomycin during dialysis proved to be a protective factor against concentrations outside the therapeutic target. Further studies are needed to suggest more appropriate doses of vancomycin for patients with AKI on dialysis therapy and to assess the impact of these results on clinical outcomes.

Vancomycin removal and pharmacokinetics during accelerated venovenous hemofiltration

INTRODUCTION

Vancomycin pharmacokinetics are affected by renal replacement therapy and physiologic changes in critically ill patients. Literature regarding vancomycin removal and pharmacokinetics during accelerated venovenous hemofiltration (AVVH), a form of prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy, is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the removal and pharmacokinetics of vancomycin during AVVH.

METHODS

Eighteen critically ill adults receiving vancomycin and AVVH were included. Vancomycin serum concentrations were obtained within 4 h before and 2-6 h after the AVVH session. Patients' serum concentrations were plotted against time, and individual pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by a one-compartmental analysis. Continuous data are reported as a median (interquartile range [IQR]) and categorical data as a percentage.

RESULTS

The median AVVH effluent rate was 39.3 mL/kg/h (IQR 35.5-48 mL/kg/h) for a duration of 9 h (IQR 8-9.75 h). AVVH decreased vancomycin concentrations by 29.8% (IQR 24.9%-35.9%), at a rate of 3.4% per hour (IQR 3.1%-4.3% per hour) of AVVH. The vancomycin elimination rate constant and half-life were 0.039 h-1 (IQR 0.036-0.053 h-1 ) and 17.6 h (IQR 13.1-18.8 h), respectively. The area under the curve during AVVH was 171.7 mg*h/L (IQR 149.1-190 mg*h/L). The volume of distribution in 10 patients was 1 L/kg (IQR 0.73-1.1 L/kg). After AVVH, vancomycin 1000 mg (IQR 750-1000 mg) was needed to maintain a serum trough concentration ≥15 mg/L.

CONCLUSION

Vancomycin is significantly removed by AVVH, which requires supplemental dosing after completion of the AVVH session to maintain desired serum concentrations. Therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin serum concentrations is recommended for patients undergoing AVVH.

Prolonged Intermittent Kidney Replacement Therapy

Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a vital, supportive treatment for patients with critical illness and severe AKI. The optimal timing, dose, and modality of KRT have been studied extensively, but gaps in knowledge remain. With respect to modalities, continuous KRT and intermittent hemodialysis are well-established options, but prolonged intermittent KRT is becoming more prevalent worldwide, particularly in emerging countries. Compared with continuous KRT, prolonged intermittent KRT offers similar hemodynamic stability and overall cost savings, and its intermittent nature allows patients time off therapy for mobilization and procedures. When compared with intermittent hemodialysis, prolonged intermittent KRT offers more hemodynamic stability, particularly in patients who remain highly vulnerable to hypotension from aggressive ultrafiltration over a shorter duration of treatment. The prescription of prolonged intermittent KRT can be tailored to patients' progression in their recovery from critical illness, and the frequency, flow rates, and duration of treatment can be modified to avert hemodynamic instability during de-escalation of care. Dosing of prolonged intermittent KRT can be extrapolated from urea kinetics used to calculate clearance for continuous KRT and intermittent hemodialysis. Practice variations across institutions with respect to terminology, prescription, and dosing of prolonged intermittent KRT create significant challenges, especially in creating specific drug dosing recommendations during prolonged intermittent KRT. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, prolonged intermittent KRT was rapidly implemented to meet the KRT demands during patient surges in some of the medical centers overwhelmed by sheer volume of patients with AKI. Ideally, implementation of prolonged intermittent KRT at any institution should be conducted in a timely manner, with judicious planning and collaboration among nephrology, critical care, dialysis and intensive care nursing, and pharmacy leadership. Future analyses and clinical trials with respect to prescription and delivery of prolonged intermittent KRT and clinical outcomes will help to guide standardization of practice.

Trough concentrations of meropenem and piperacillin during slow extended dialysis in critically ill patients with intermittent and continuous infusion: A prospective observational study

Beta-lactam dosing is challenging in critically ill patients with slow extended daily dialysis (SLEDD). This prospective observational study aimed to investigate meropenem and piperacillin concentrations and half-lives during SLEDD and in SLEDD-free intervals. Critically ill patients with SLEDD-therapy and meropenem or piperacillin therapy were included. Breakpoints of target attainment were defined as 2 and 20.8 mg/L for meropenem and piperacillin, respectively. Daily TDM was performed and therapies were adapted based on the measured concentrations. Elimination rate constants were determined by using nonlinear regression analysis. Seventeen patients were included (48 SLEDD intervals; median SLEDD-duration: 7.25 h). The median antibiotic trough concentrations and half-lives were significantly (p < 0.001) lower during and after the SLEDD-therapy compared to SLEDD-free intervals (median meropenem: 22.3 (IQR: 12.8, 25.6) vs. 28.3 mg/L (IQR: 16.9, 37.4); median piperacillin: 55.8 (IQR: 45.1, 84.9) vs. 130 mg/L (IQR: 91.5, 154.5); relative change: -48.0% each, IQR meropenem: -33.3, -58.5%; IQR piperacillin: -36.3, -52.1%). However, none of the measured trough concentrations were subtherapeutic during SLEDD. SLEDD leads to a reduction in meropenem and piperacillin concentrations of approximately 50% independently of the initial concentration. If the concentration is twice as high as the breakpoint of target attainment before SLEDD-therapy, subtherapeutic levels can be avoided.

The landscape of renal replacement therapy in Veterans Affairs Medical Center intensive care units

Background

Outpatient dialysis is standardized with several evidence-based measures of adequacy and quality that providers aim to meet while providing treatment. By contrast, in the intensive care unit (ICU) there are different types of prolonged and continuous renal replacement therapies (PIRRT and CRRT, respectively) with varied strategies for addressing patient care and a dearth of nationally accepted quality parameters. To eventually describe appropriate quality measures for ICU-related renal replacement therapy (RRT), we first aimed to capture the variety and prevalence of basic strategies and equipment utilized in the ICUs of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical facilities with inpatient hemodialysis capabilities.

Methods

Via email to the dialysis directors of all VA facilities that provided inpatient hemodialysis during 2018, we requested survey participation regarding aspects of RRT in VA ICUs. Questions centered around the mode of therapy, equipment, solutions, prescription authority, nursing, anticoagulation, antimicrobial dosing, and access.

Results

Seventy-six centers completed the questionnaire, achieving a response rate of 87.4%. Fifty-five centers reported using PIRRT or CRRT in addition to intermittent hemodialysis. Of these centers, 42 reported being specifically CRRT-capable. Over half of respondents had the capabilities to perform PIRRT. Twelve centers (21.8%) were equipped to use slow low efficient dialysis (SLED) alone. Therapy was largely prescribed by nephrologists (94.4% of centers).

Conclusions

Within the VA system, ICU-related RRT practice is quite varied. Variation in processes of care, prescription authority, nursing care coordination, medication management, and safety practices present opportunities for developing cross-cutting measures of quality of intensive care RRT that are agnostic of modality choice.

Evaluation of the MeroRisk Calculator, A User-Friendly Tool to Predict the Risk of Meropenem Target Non-Attainment in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

The MeroRisk-calculator, an easy-to-use tool to determine the risk of meropenem target non-attainment after standard dosing (1000 mg; q8h), uses a patient's creatinine clearance and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen. In clinical practice, however, the MIC is rarely available. The objectives were to evaluate the MeroRisk-calculator and to extend risk assessment by including general pathogen sensitivity data.

METHODS

Using a clinical routine dataset (155 patients, 891 samples), a direct data-based evaluation was not feasible. Thus, in step 1, the performance of a pharmacokinetic model was determined for predicting the measured concentrations. In step 2, the PK model was used for a model-based evaluation of the MeroRisk-calculator: risk of target non-attainment was calculated using the PK model and agreement with the MeroRisk-calculator was determined by a visual and statistical (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)) analysis for MIC values 0.125-16 mg/L. The MeroRisk-calculator was extended to include risk assessment based on EUCAST-MIC distributions and cumulative-fraction-of-response analysis.

RESULTS

Step 1 showed a negligible bias of the PK model to underpredict concentrations (-0.84 mg/L). Step 2 revealed a high level of agreement between risk of target non-attainment predictions for creatinine clearances >50 mL/min (CCC = 0.990), but considerable deviations for patients <50 mL/min. For 27% of EUCAST-listed pathogens the median cumulative-fraction-of-response for the observed patients receiving standard dosing was < 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

The MeroRisk-calculator was successfully evaluated: For patients with maintained renal function it allows a reliable and user-friendly risk assessment. The integration of pathogen-based risk assessment substantially increases the applicability of the tool.

Pharmacokinetics of Vancomycin in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Sustained Low-Efficiency Dialysis

INTRODUCTION

Vancomycin pharmacokinetic data in critically ill patients receiving sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) is limited. Published data using vancomycin with intermittent hemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy may not be applicable to hybrid dialysis modalities such as SLED. Current drug references lack recommendations for vancomycin dosing in patients receiving SLED.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine vancomycin pharmacokinetics during SLED.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients who were critically ill with oliguric or anuric renal failure who received vancomycin and SLED were included in the study. Surrounding one SLED session, serum vancomycin blood samples were drawn before the initiation of SLED, at the termination of SLED, and 4 hours after completion of SLED treatment. Following this, patients received vancomycin, dosed to target a goal peak of 20-30 mcg/ml. A vancomycin peak level was drawn 1 hour after the end of the infusion. SLED treatment duration was at least 7 hours. Continuous data are reported as median (interquartile range) and categorical data as percentage.

RESULTS

The vancomycin elimination rate and half-life were 0.051 hours (0.042-0.074 hours) and 13.6 hours (9.4-16.6 hours), respectively. SLED reduced vancomycin serum concentrations by 35.4% (31.5-43.8%), and vancomycin rebound was 9.8% (2.5-13.7%). The vancomycin dose administered post-SLED was 1000 mg (875-1125 mg). For 18 patients, the patient-specific volume of distribution was 0.88 L/kg (0.67-1.1 L/kg), vancomycin clearance was 3.5 L/hr (2.2-5.2 L/hr), and the area under the concentration-time curve during the study time period was 280.8 mg·hr/L (254.7-297.3 mg·hr/L).

CONCLUSION

Vancomycin is significantly removed during SLED with little rebound in serum concentrations 4 hours after completion of SLED. Based on study findings, patients who are critically ill require additional vancomycin dosing after each SLED session to maintain therapeutic post-SLED vancomycin concentrations. Therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin is recommended during SLED.

Vancomycin for Dialytic Therapy in Critically Ill Patients: Analysis of Its Reduction and the Factors Associated with Subtherapeutic Concentrations

This study aimed to evaluate the reduction in vancomycin through intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) and prolonged haemodialysis (PHD) in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients with sepsis and to identify the variables associated with subtherapeutic concentrations. A prospective study was performed in patients admitted at an intensive care unit (ICU) of a Brazilian hospital. Blood samples were collected at the start of dialytic therapy, after 2 and 4 h of treatment and at the end of therapy to determine the serum concentration of vancomycin and thus perform pharmacokinetic evaluation and PK/PD modelling. Twenty-seven patients treated with IHD, 17 treated with PHD for 6 h and 11 treated with PHD for 10 h were included. The reduction in serum concentrations of vancomycin after 2 h of therapy was 26.65 ± 12.64% and at the end of dialysis was 45.78 ± 12.79%, higher in the 10-h PHD group, 57.70% (40, 48–64, 30%) (p = 0.037). The ratio of the area under the curve to minimal inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) at 24 h in the PHD group was significantly smaller than at 10 h (p = 0.047). In the logistic regression, PHD was a risk factor for an AUC/MIC ratio less than 400 (OR = 11.59, p = 0.033), while a higher serum concentration of vancomycin at T0 was a protective factor (OR = 0.791, p = 0.009). In conclusion, subtherapeutic concentrations of vancomycin in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients in dialysis were elevated and may be related to a higher risk of bacterial resistance and mortality, besides pointing out the necessity of additional doses of vancomycin during dialytic therapy, mainly in PHD.

Pharmacokinetics and dosing of vancomycin in patients undergoing sustained low efficiency daily diafiltration (SLEDD-f): A prospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in patients who undergo sustained low efficiency daily diafiltration (SLEDD-f) is not clear. This study aimed to determine the appropriate vancomycin dosage regimen for patients receiving SLEDD-f.

METHODS

This prospectively observational study enrolled critically ill patients older than 18 years old that used SLEDD-f as renal replacement therapy and received vancomycin treatment. An 8-h SLEDD-f was performed with FX-60 (high-flux helixone membrane, 1.4 m²). Serial blood samples were collected before, during, and after SLEDD-f to analyse vancomycin serum concentrations. Effluent fluid samples (a mixture of dialysate and ultrafiltrate) were also collected to determine the amount of vancomycin removal.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were enrolled, and 10 completed the study. The amount of vancomycin removal was 447.4 ± 88.8 mg (about 78.4 ± 18.4% of the dose administered before SLEDD-f). The vancomycin concentration was reduced by 57.5 ± 14.9% during SLEDD-f, and this reduction was followed by a rebound with duration of one to three hours. The elimination half-life of vancomycin decreased from 64.1 ± 35.7 h before SLEDD-f to 7.0 ± 3.0 h during SLEDD-f.

CONCLUSION

Significant amount of vancomycin removed during SLEDD-f. Despite the existence of post-dialysis rebound, a sufficient supplemental dose is necessary to maintain therapeutic range.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of Vancomycin and Meropenem in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Sustained Low-efficiency Dialysis

PURPOSE

Antibiotic dosing is challenge in critically ill patients undergoing renal replacement therapy. Our aim was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) characteristics of meropenem and vancomycin in patients undergoing SLED.

METHODS

Consecutive ICU patients undergoing SLED and receiving meropenem and/or vancomycin were prospectively evaluated. Serial blood samples were collected before, during, and at the end of SLED sessions. Antimicrobial concentrations were determined using a validated HPLC method. Noncompartmental PK analysis was performed. AUC was determined for vancomycin. For meropenem, time above MIC was calculated.

FINDINGS

A total of 24 patients receiving vancomycin and 21 receiving meropenem were included; 170 plasma samples were obtained. Median serum vancomycin and meropenem concentrations before SLED were 24.5 and 28.0 μg/mL, respectively; after SLED, 14 and 6 μg/mL. Mean removal was 42% with vancomycin and 78% with meropenem. With vancomycin, 19 (83%), 16 (70%), and 15 (65%) patients would have achieved the target (AUC_0-24 >400) considering MICs of 1, 2, and 4 mg/L, respectively. With meropenem, 17 (85%), 14 (70%), and 10 (50%) patients would have achieved the target (100% of time above MIC) if infected with isolates with MICs of 1, 4, and 8 mg/L, respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

SLED clearances of meropenem and vancomycin were 3-fold higher than the clearance described by continuous methods. Despite this finding, overall high PK/PD target attainments were obtained, except for at higher MICs. We suggest a maintenance dose of 1 g TID or BID of meropenem. With vancomycin, a more individualized approach using therapeutic drug monitoring should be used, as commercial assays are available.

Antibiotic Dosing for Critically Ill Adult Patients Receiving Intermittent Hemodialysis, Prolonged Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapy, and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: An Update

Objective: To summarize current antibiotic dosing recommendations in critically ill patients receiving intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), including considerations for individualizing therapy. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed from January 2008 to May 2019 was performed to identify English-language literature in which dosing recommendations were proposed for antibiotics commonly used in critically ill patients receiving IHD, PIRRT, or CRRT. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All pertinent reviews, selected studies, and references were evaluated to ensure appropriateness for inclusion. Data Synthesis: Updated empirical dosing considerations are proposed for antibiotics in critically ill patients receiving IHD, PIRRT, and CRRT with recommendations for individualizing therapy. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review defines principles for assessing renal function, identifies RRT system properties affecting drug clearance and drug properties affecting clearance during RRT, outlines pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic dosing considerations, reviews pertinent updates in the literature, develops updated empirical dosing recommendations, and highlights important factors for individualizing therapy in critically ill patients. Conclusions: Appropriate antimicrobial selection and dosing are vital to improve clinical outcomes. Dosing recommendations should be applied cautiously with efforts to consider local epidemiology and resistance patterns, antibiotic dosing and infusion strategies, renal replacement modalities, patient-specific considerations, severity of illness, residual renal function, comorbidities, and patient response to therapy. Recommendations provided herein are intended to serve as a guide in developing and revising therapy plans individualized to meet a patient's needs.