Clinical pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy of ceftriaxone in Chinese adults

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.

Interethnic differences in pharmacokinetics of antibacterials

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibacterial dosing is imperative for maximising clinical outcome. Many factors can contribute to changes in the pharmacokinetics of antibacterials to the extent where dose adjustment may be needed. In acute illness, substantial changes in important pharmacokinetic parameters such as volume of distribution and clearance can occur for certain antibacterials. The possibility of interethnic pharmacokinetic differences can further complicate attempts to design an appropriate dosing regimen. Factors of ethnicity, such as genetics, body size and fat distribution, contribute to differences in absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of drugs. Despite extensive previous work on the altered pharmacokinetics of antibacterials in some patient groups such as the critically ill, knowledge of interethnic pharmacokinetic differences for antibacterials is limited.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to describe any pharmacokinetic differences in antibacterials between different ethnic groups, and discuss their probable mechanisms as well as any clinical implications.

METHODS

We performed a structured literature review to identify and describe available data of the interethnic differences in the pharmacokinetics of antibacterials.

RESULTS

We found 50 articles that met our inclusion criteria and only six of these compared antibacterial pharmacokinetics between different ethnicities within the same study. Overall, there was limited evidence available. We found that interethnic pharmacokinetic differences are negligible for carbapenems, most β-lactams, aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, most fluoroquinolones, linezolid and daptomycin, whereas significant difference is likely for ciprofloxacin, macrolides, clindamycin, tinidazole and some cephalosporins. In general, subjects of Asian ethnicity achieve drug exposures up to two to threefold greater than Caucasian counterparts for these antibacterials. This difference is caused by a comparatively lower volume of distribution and/or drug clearance.

CONCLUSION

Interethnic pharmacokinetic differences of antibacterials are likely; however, the clinical relevance of these differences is unknown and warrants further research.