RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of anti-infectives such as linezolid is routinely performed in blood of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to optimize target attainment. However, the concentration at the site of infection is considered more important for a successful therapy. Until now, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is the gold standard to measure intrapulmonary concentrations of anti-infective agents. However, it is an invasive method and unsuitable for regular TDM. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to investigate whether it is possible to reliably determine the intrapulmonary concentration of linezolid from endotracheal aspiration (ENTA). METHODS: Intubated ICU patients receiving 600 mg intravenous linezolid twice daily were examined in steady state. First, preliminary experiments were performed in six patients to investigate which patients are suitable for linezolid measurement in ENTA. In a second step, trough and peak linezolid concentrations of plasma and ENTA were determined in nine suitable patients. RESULTS: Linezolid can validly be detected in ENTA with viscous texture and > 0.5 mL volume. The mean (SD) linezolid trough concentration was 2.02 (1.27) mg/L in plasma and 1.60 (1.36) mg/L in ENTA, resulting in a median lung penetration rate of 104%. The mean (SD) peak concentration in plasma and ENTA was 10.77 (5.93) and 4.74 (2.66) mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid can validly be determined in ENTA with an adequate texture and volume. The penetration rate is comparable to already published BAL concentrations. This method might offer a simple and non-invasive method for TDM at the site of infection "lung". Due to promising results of the feasibility study, comparison of ENTA and BAL in the same patient should be investigated in a further trial.
RESUMO
Piperacillin (PIP)/tazobactam is a frequently prescribed antibiotic; however, over- or underdosing may contribute to toxicity, therapeutic failure, and development of antimicrobial resistance. An external evaluation of 24 published PIP-models demonstrated that model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) can enhance target attainment. Employing various candidate models, this study aimed to assess the predictive performance of different MIPD-approaches comparing (i) a single-model approach, (ii) a model selection algorithm (MSA) and (iii) a model averaging algorithm (MAA). Precision, accuracy and expected target attainment, considering either initial (B1) or initial and secondary (B2) therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-samples per patient, were assessed in a multicenter dataset (561 patients, 11 German centers, 3654 TDM-samples). The results demonstrated a slight superiority in predictive performance using MAA in B1, regardless of the candidate models, compared to MSA and the best single models (MAA, MSA, single models: inaccuracy ±3%, ±10%, ±8%; imprecision: <25%, <31%, <28%; expected target attainment >77%, >71%, >73%). The inclusion of a second TDM-sample notably improved precision and target attainment for all MIPD-approaches, particularly within the context of MSA and most of the single models. The expected target attainment is maximized (up to >90%) when the TDM-sample is integrated within 24 hours. In conclusion, MAA streamlines MIPD by reducing the risk of selecting an inappropriate model for specific patients. Therefore, MIPD of PIP using MAA implicates further optimization of antibiotic exposure in critically ill patients, by improving predictive performance with only one sample available for Bayesian forecasting, safety, and usability in clinical practice.