β-lactam dosing strategies: Think before you push

• Published in: International journal of antimicrobial agents 2020-11, Vol.56 (5), p.106151-106151, Article 106151
• Main Authors: Liu, Jiajun, Rhodes, Nathaniel J., Roberts, Jason A., Pais, Gwendolyn M., Turner, Ben, Kiel, Patrick J., Scheetz, Marc H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cefepime; Intermittent infusion; Intravenous push; Pharmacodynamic; Pharmacokinetic; Traditional dosing
• ISSN: 0924-8579; 1872-7913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106151

There has been interest in administering cefepime, a β-lactam antibiotic, via intravenous push (IVP) as a means to improve time to first-dose antibiotic and reduce cost; however, the downstream impacts on antibiotic exposure and pharmacodynamic efficacy need to be further evaluated. This study used a population pharmacokinetic model for cefepime and simulated exposures to predict the pharmacodynamic (PD) effect for cefepime regimens administered via IVP or 30-minute intermittent infusion in adults with different renal functions. FDA-approved adult dosages of 1–2 g every 8 or 12 hours were compared. This study aimed to compare the absolute difference in pharmacodynamic probability of target attainment (PTA) between IVP and intermittent infusion, defined as free cefepime concentrations above organism MIC for ≥ 70% of the time. At MICs of 0.25–0.5 mg/L, absolute differences in PTA were observed, with a reduction as great as 2.3% (89% to 86.7% for 30-minute intermittent infusion and IVP, respectively). At MICs of 1–4 mg/L, 30-minute intermittent infusion and IVP exhibited PTA differences as great as 5.4%, from 89.4% to 84%, respectively. At MICs of ≥8 mg/L, similar absolute differences existed; however, no regimen achieved a PTA >70%. Across renal function strata of 60, 100 and 140 mL/minute (within the same dosing group and MICs), better renal function lowered PTAs. Simulations demonstrated that IVP cefepime resulted in lower PTAs than traditional intermittent infusion among a subset of elevated MICs. Clinicians should exercise caution in IVP strategy, as unintended clinical consequences are possible.