Association of Vancomycin Trough Concentration With Response to Treatment for Acute Pulmonary Exacerbation of Cystic Fibrosis

Pharmacokinetics of intermittent dosed intravenous vancomycin in adult persons with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics have altered pharmacokinetics (PK) in persons with cystic fibrosis (PwCF) during treatment for an acute pulmonary exacerbation (APE). The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Pulmonary Guidelines-Treatment of Pulmonary Exacerbations do not provide specific recommendations for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) lung infections. However, the American Thoracic Society Guidelines recommend vancomycin as the first-line therapy. Only one study has previously described a single dose of intravenous (IV) vancomycin PK in adult PwCF. Our study aimed to describe intermittent IV vancomycin PK at steady-state in adult PwCF.

METHODS

Adult PwCF who were admitted to University of Utah Hospital between May 11, 2014 and August 31, 2020, and received intermittent IV vancomycin for the treatment of an APE were included in this study. The primary outcome was to describe the drug volume of distribution (Vd), drug clearance, elimination half-life, and total daily dose of vancomycin. Secondary outcomes were rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), liver injury, and infusion-related reactions.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were included. The mean Vd was 0.54 L/kg on Day 3 and 0.53L/kg on Day 7. CL_vanco was 5.11L/h on Day 3 and 4.69 L/h on Day 7. Zero patients experienced an AKI, two patients experienced liver injury, and no patients experienced infusion-related reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that in PwCF intermittent IV vancomycin steady-state PK are similar to previously reported single-dose IV vancomycin. Additionally, CL_vanco minimally changes from Day 3 to Day 7, although this study was not powered to detect a difference.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Optimization of Antibiotic Therapy in Cystic Fibrosis Patients: Current Evidences, Gaps in Knowledge and Future Directions

Antibiotic therapy is one of the main treatments for cystic fibrosis (CF). It aims to eradicate bacteria during early infection, calms down the inflammatory process, and leads to symptom resolution of pulmonary exacerbations. CF can modify both the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of antibiotics, therefore specific PK/PD endpoints should be determined in the context of CF. Currently available data suggest that optimal PK/PD targets cannot be attained in sputum with intravenous aminoglycosides. Continuous infusion appears preferable for β-lactam antibiotics, but optimal concentrations in sputum are unlikely to be reached, with some possible exceptions such as meropenem and ceftolozane. Usual doses are likely suboptimal for fluoroquinolones and linezolid, whereas daily doses of 45-60 mg/kg and 200 mg could be convenient for vancomycin and doxycycline, respectively. Weekly azithromycin doses of 22-30 mg/kg could also be appropriate for its anti-inflammatory effect. The difficulty with achieving optimal concentrations supports the use of combined treatments and the inhaled administration route, as very high local concentrations, concomitantly with low systemic exposure, can be obtained with the inhaled route for aminoglycosides, colistin, and fluoroquinolones, thus minimizing the risk of toxicity.

Ceftaroline vs vancomycin for the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis

INTRODUCTION

Respiratory infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an increasing complication in cystic fibrosis (CF) that results in accelerated lung function decline and mortality. Vancomycin is considered a first-line intravenous treatment agent for MRSA associated acute pulmonary exacerbations (APEs); however, rates of vancomycin intolerance and resistance have been observed. These factors have led to the exploration of additional treatment options for treating MRSA associated APEs.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review conducted at a CF center including patients 0 to 21 years of age with CF admitted for an APE and treated with either vancomycin or ceftaroline between January 2016 and August 2018. The primary endpoint was to determine ceftaroline efficacy compared to vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA associated APEs.

RESULTS

There were 180 patients included in the study with 90 patients in each antibiotic group. Admission to discharge forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ) improved in the ceftaroline (66.5% vs 81.1%; P < .001) and vancomycin (65.5% vs 77.3%; P < .001) treatment groups. No difference existed in mean change in FEV1 (14.1% vs 13.5%; P = .25) or readmissions (15% vs 22; P = .27) between ceftaroline and vancomycin groups, respectively.

DISCUSSION

In this retrospective study, no difference existed between ceftaroline and vancomycin with regard to observed improvement in lung function from admission to discharge. Additionally, no difference was observed in mean FEV1 or readmission rate between the two groups. Ceftaroline may represent an effective and safe intravenous antimicrobial option for targeting MRSA in pediatric CF patients with APEs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Vancomycin Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Pulmonary Exacerbations of Cystic Fibrosis

Background: Data are limited regarding the preferred antibiotics for treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations (APEs) of cystic fibrosis (CF), when methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is suspected. Objective: To compare the rate of return to baseline lung function among individuals with APEs of CF treated with either vancomycin or linezolid. Methods: This retrospective study included individuals hospitalized for APEs of CF from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2017 who were infected with MRSA and treated with vancomycin or linezolid. The primary outcome was the return to baseline lung function, as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Descriptive and inferential statistics were used. All tests were 2-tailed with α set at 0.05. Results: A total of 122 encounters were included (vancomycin: n = 66; linezolid: n = 66). No difference existed in return to baseline FEV1 between vancomycin (53 [80.3%]) and linezolid (50 [75.8%]; P = 0.53); nor was there a difference in median percentage change in FEV1 from admission to follow-up between vancomycin (24.7%) and linezolid (20.7%; P = 0.61). Adverse drug events occurred more frequently in patient encounters treated with vancomycin (10 [15.2%]) compared with linezolid (2 [3%]; P = 0.002). Conclusion and Relevance: Our study observed no difference in the effectiveness of vancomycin compared with linezolid in terms of change in lung function for APEs of CF. The rate of adverse drug events was low. In individuals with CF infected with MRSA who are experiencing an APE, either vancomycin or linezolid appear to be viable treatment options.

Pharmacokinetic Monitoring of Vancomycin in Cystic Fibrosis: Is It Time to Move Past Trough Concentrations?

BACKGROUND

A correlation between vancomycin (VAN) trough concentrations (VTC) and area under the curve (AUC) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio (AUC/MIC) has not been established in children/adolescents with cystic fibrosis (CF). The primary objective of this study was to determine the correlation between measured VTCs and AUC/MIC using population-based pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of children/adolescents diagnosed with CF, 6 to <18 years of age, treated with VAN for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection was conducted. The relationship between final VTCs and calculated AUC/MIC was assessed using Pearson and Spearman correlations. All tests were 2-tailed with alpha set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Thirty children/adolescents, 7 to 17 years of age (median age 15 year; interquartile range: 9-17 years), were included. The mean final VAN dose was 58.03 ± 18.58 mg/kg/d, and the median final VTC was 12.6 (11-13.6) mg/L. The mean AUC/MIC was 355.34 ± 138.46 (Le model) versus 426.79 ± 178.92 (Stockmann model; P = 0.089). No correlation existed between VTCs and AUC/MIC using either the model by Le (r = 0.140; P = 0.461) or Stockmann (r = 0.115; P = 0.564). Using the Stockmann model, VAN dose (mg/kg/dose) was found to have a strong positive correlation with AUC (r = 0.8874; P < 0.0001) and AUC/MIC (r = 0.7877; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

VTCs did not correlate with AUC or AUC/MIC. Further research is needed to determine which estimate of VAN treatment efficacy is most appropriate for children and adolescents with CF infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Biology and management of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in cystic fibrosis

Staphylococcus aureus is one of the earliest bacteria isolated from the respiratory tract in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Its methicillin resistant form, MRSA, has gained attention due to the rapid increase in the last decades and worse outcomes with chronic infection. In the United States, prevalence of MRSA in CF is around 27%, but is much lower (3-18%) in most other countries. Methicillin is typically genetically encoded by the mecA gene, which encodes for an alternative penicillin binding protein (PRBa). This PRBa has low affinity to β-lactams, thereby enabling growth of S. aureus in the presence of penicillinase resistant penicillins and most other β-lactams. Non-mecA positive strains of MRSA, so-called borderline resistant (BORSA) have also been described. In addition to production of toxins, the virulence of S. aureus is conferred by its adaptability allowing persistence in face of antibiotic therapies and host defense. These adaptive growth mechanisms include small colony variants, biofilms, and growth under anaerobic conditions. Several reports have described successful eradication of MRSA, yet only two randomized trials of eradication during early infection have been conducted. A list of MRSA specific antibiotics with dosing relevant to CF patients is presented here. Many of these require special dosing in people with CF. Novel antibiotics are in trials for skin and soft tissue infections and it is unclear if and when those might be available for lung infections. Thus the best strategies for MRSA would be primary prevention.