Comparison of two empirical prolonged infusion dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock: A two-center pilot study

Albrecht Eisert,Christian Lanckohr,Janina Frey,Otto Frey,Sebastian G Wicha,Dagmar Horn,Bjoern Ellger,Tobias Schuerholz,Gernot Marx,Tim-Philipp Simon
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106289
Abstract:Background: Due to high pharmacokinetic variability, standard doses of meropenem are frequently inadequate in septic patients. Therapeutic drug monitoring of meropenem is not widely available; therefore, improved empiric dosing recommendations are needed. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the attainment of pharmacologic targets for two common empirical dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock. Methods: Two empiric dosing schemes for meropenem were compared using extended infusions (120 minutes) in 32 patients with septic shock in the intensive care units at two different hospitals. One regimen was 3 × 2 g meropenem/24 h for two days, followed by 3 × 1 g meropenem/24 h; the other regimen was 4 × 1 g meropenem/24 h. Serum meropenem concentrations were measured for the first 72 h of therapy, and pharmacokinetic modelling was performed to define the percentage of time the free drug concentration was above various target MICs for each regimen (%fT>MIC). Results: Both regimens led to a sufficiently high %fT>MIC for pathogens with target MICs < 4 mg/L. When higher MICs were targeted, the %fT>MIC of 4 × 1 g meropenem decreased faster than that of 3 × 2 g meropenem. At high MICs of 32 mg/L, both dosing regimens failed to provide appropriate drug concentrations. Renal function was a significant covariate of target attainment. Conclusions: The results of this study can guide clinicians in their choice of an empirical dosing regimen for meropenem. If pathogens with low MICs (< 4 mg/L) are targeted, both dosing regimens are adequate, whereas more resistant strains require higher doses.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?