This study was conducted to identify optimal dosage regimens and estimate pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) characteristics of short-infusion (SI) versus extended-infusion (EI) biapenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in Chinese intensive care unit (ICU) patients. A total of 85 strains of P. aeruginosa were collected, and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of biapenem was measured by the serial two-fold agar dilution method. We designed four frequently used clinical regimens: biapenem 300?mg I.V. q12h, q8h, and q6h, and 600?mg q12h. The Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was performed using previously published pharmacokinetic data to calculate the probability of target attainment (PTA) and the cumulative fraction of response (CFR) of these regimens as an SI (0.5?h) and an EI (1?h, 2?h, 3?h, and 4?h).For a target of 40%fT>MIC (serum drug concentration remains above the MIC for a dosing period), none of the regimens achieved any CFRs>90% for P. aeruginosa, multidrug–resistant P. aeruginosa (MDR-PA) and even non–MDR-PA. The traditional biapenem SI regimens most commonly seen in clinical practice were insufficient in treating both MDR and non-MDR P. aeruginosa in ICU patients. However, biapenem 600?mg q12h over 2–4?h EI regimens could achieve CFR>90% with 20%fT>MIC. Clinical trials should aim to validate the potentially greater PK/PD index with higher, more frequent doses and longer extended infusions. 相似文献
Background: Biapenem is a parenteral carbapenem antibiotic that has powerful antibacterial activity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biapenem for the treatment of infection diseases.
Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of published randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) identified in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane library that compared the efficacy and safety of biapenem with other antibiotic regimes for the treatment of patients with infections.
Results: Eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving totally 1685 patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). There was no difference found between the patients with LRTIs, cUTIs, or cIAIs treated with biapenem and comparators, regarding treatment success and adverse events.
Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that biapenem can be used as effectively and safely as imipenem–cilstatin or meropenem, for the treatment of patients with LRTIs, cUTIs, and cIAIs. It may be a considerable option for the treatment of these infections. 相似文献