Correction to: Tobramycin Clearance Is Best Described by Renal Function Estimates in Obese and Nonobese Individuals: Results of a Prospective Rich Sampling Pharmacokinetic Study.

There was a mistake in the units of CL and Q, and in the parentheses of the formula for CL in the final model in Table 2. The corrected Table appears below.

Tobramycin Clearance Is Best Described by Renal Function Estimates in Obese and Non-obese Individuals: Results of a Prospective Rich Sampling Pharmacokinetic Study.

PURPOSE: Tobramycin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic of which the 24 h exposure correlates with efficacy. Recently, we found that clearance of the aminoglycoside gentamicin correlates with total body weight (TBW). In this study, we investigate the full pharmacokinetic profile of tobramycin in obese and non-obese individuals with normal renal function. METHODS: Morbidly obese individuals (n = 20) undergoing bariatric surgery and non-obese healthy volunteers (n = 8), with TBW ranging 57-194 kg, received an IV dose of tobramycin with plasma concentrations measured over 24 h (n = 10 per individual). Statistical analysis, modelling and simulations were performed using NONMEM. RESULTS: In a two-compartment model, TBW was the best predictor for central volume of distribution (p < 0.001). For clearance, MDRD (de-indexed for body surface area) was identified as best covariate (p < 0.001), and was superior over TBW ((p < 0.05). Other renal function estimates (24 h urine GFR and de-indexed CKD-EPI) led to similar results as MDRD (all p < 0.001)). CONCLUSIONS: In obese and non-obese individuals with normal renal function, renal function estimates such as MDRD were identified as best predictors for tobramycin clearance, which may imply that other processes are involved in clearance of tobramycin versus gentamicin. To ensure similar exposure across body weights, we propose a MDRD-based dosing nomogram for obese patients.

Comparison of different pain scoring systems in critically ill patients in a general ICU.

BACKGROUND: Pain in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is common. However, pain assessment in critically ill patients often is complicated because these patients are unable to communicate effectively. Therefore, we designed a study (a) to determine the inter-rater reliability of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), (b) to compare pain scores of different observers and the patient, and (c) to compare NRS, BPS, and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for measuring pain in patients in the ICU. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in 113 non-paralyzed critically ill patients. The attending nurses, two researchers, and the patient (when possible) obtained 371 independent observation series of NRS, BPS, and VAS. Data analyses were performed on the sample size of patients (n = 113). RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of the NRS and BPS proved to be adequate (kappa = 0.71 and 0.67, respectively). The level of agreement within one scale point between NRS rated by the patient and NRS scored by attending nurses was 73%. However, high patient scores (NRS > or = 4) were underestimated by nurses (patients 33% versus nurses 18%). In responsive patients, a high correlation between NRS and VAS was found (rs = 0.84, P < 0.001). In ventilated patients, a moderate positive correlation was found between the NRS and the BPS (rs = 0.55, P < 0.001). However, whereas 6% of the observations were NRS of greater than or equal to 4, BPS scores were all very low (median 3.0, range 3.0 to 5.0). CONCLUSION: The different scales show a high reliability, but observer-based evaluation often underestimates the pain, particularly in the case of high NRS values (> or = 4) rated by the patient. Therefore, whenever this is possible, ICU patients should rate their pain. In unresponsive patients, primarily the attending nurse involved in daily care should score the patient's pain. In ventilated patients, the BPS should be used only in conjunction with the NRS nurse to measure pain levels in the absence of painful stimuli.