替考拉宁在中国成人患者中的群体药动学研究

目的建立中国成年患者的替考拉宁(teicoplanin,TEC)群体药动学(population pharmacokinetics,PPK)模型,考察TEC药动学参数的影响因素。方法前瞻性收集139例革兰阳性球菌感染患者静脉注射TEC后的222份常规监测血药浓度和相关信息,采用一级消除的一室模型进行数据拟合,并应用非线性混合效应模型(nonlinear mixed effect model,NONMEM)程序建立PPK模型。采用Bootstrap、正态预测分布误差法(normalized predictive distribution error,NPDE)进行最终模型评价。利用蒙特卡洛模拟法对给药方案进行优化。结果确定了肌酐清除率(creatinine clearance,CLcr)、白蛋白(albumin,ALB)为影响TEC清除率的主要因素。最终模型为:CL(L·h^-1)=1.24×(CLcr/77)0.564×31/ALB;V(L)=69.2。验证表明,模型稳定、有效,且有较好的预测效能。对于不同ALB和CLcr的多数患者起始负荷剂量400 mg/q12h,iv,3次,维持剂量400~800 mg·d^-1的给药方案可达有效治疗谷浓度。严重感染者需调整负荷剂量至800 mg/q12h,iv,3次,维持剂量400~800 mg·d^-1的给药方案来确保血药浓度达到15 mg·L^-1以上。结论本实验报道了CLcr、ALB对TEC清除率有显著影响,所建模型对TEC在中国成人患者中实现个体化给药具有重要应用价值。     

Use of a Checklist During Observation of a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Scenario Does Not Improve Time to CPR and Defibrillation Over Observation Alone for Subsequent Scenarios

Theory: Immersive simulation is a common mode of education for medical students. Observation of clinical simulations prior to participation is believed to be beneficial, though this is often a passive process. Active observation may be more beneficial. Hypotheses: The hypothesis tested in this study was that the active use of a simple checklist during observation of an immersive simulation would result in better participant performance in a subsequent scenario compared with passive observation alone. Methods: Medical students were randomized to either passive or active (with checklist) observation of an immersive simulation involving cardiac arrest prior to participating in their own simulation. Performance measures included time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and time to defibrillation and were compared between first and second scenarios as well as between passive and active observers. Results: Seventy-nine simulations involving 232 students were conducted. Mean time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for those using the checklist and 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = 6 seconds), t(35) = 1.46, p =.153. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for those using the checklist and 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = –2 seconds), t(38) =.21, p =.837. Time to CPR was 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for passive observers and 31 seconds (SD = 21.0; M difference = 7 seconds), t(35) = 1.13, p =.265, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for active observers and 36 seconds (SD = 26.2; M difference = 18 seconds), t(24) = 2.81, p =.010, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for passive observers and 125 seconds (SD = 32.2; M difference = 33 seconds), t(33) = 3.63, p =.001, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for the active observers and 132 seconds (SD = 52.9; M difference = 38 seconds), t(28) =.46, p =.008, for their first scenario counterparts. Conclusions: Observation alone leads to improved performance in the management of a simulated cardiac arrest. The active use of a simple skills-based checklist during observation did not appear to improve performance over passive observation alone.