Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20359352›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2010

Prospective monitoring of cefepime in intensive care unit adult patients.

Thomas M Chapuis, Eric Giannoni, Paul A Majcherczyk, René Chioléro, Marie-Denise Schaller, Mette M Berger, Saskia Bolay, Laurent A Décosterd, Denis Bugnon, Philippe Moreillon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Optimization of cefepime dosage regimens forGlobal health & medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas M ChapuisDepartment of Ambulatory Medicine and Community Healthcare, University of Lausanne, rue du Bugnon, Lausanne, Switzerland. Thomas.Chapuis@chuv.ch
Eric Giannoni
Paul A Majcherczyk
René Chioléro
Marie-Denise Schaller
Mette M Berger
Saskia Bolay
Laurent A Décosterd
Denis Bugnon
Philippe Moreillon
University of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCefepime has been associated with a greater risk of mortality than other beta-lactams in patients treated for severe sepsis. Hypotheses for this failure include possible hidden side-effects (for example, neurological) or inappropriate pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameters for bacteria with cefepime minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) at the highest limits of susceptibility (8 mg/l) or intermediate-resistance (16 mg/l) for pathogens such as Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. We examined these issues in a prospective non-interventional study of 21 consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) adult patients treated with cefepime for nosocomial pneumonia.

methodsPatients (median age 55.1 years, range 21.8 to 81.2) received intravenous cefepime at 2 g every 12 hours for creatinine clearance (CLCr) >or= 50 ml/min, and 2 g every 24 hours or 36 hours for CLCr < 50 ml/minute. Cefepime plasma concentrations were determined at several time-points before and after drug administration by high-pressure liquid chromatography. PK/PD parameters were computed by standard non-compartmental analysis.

resultsSeventeen first-doses and 11 steady states (that is, four to six days after the first dose) were measured. Plasma levels varied greatly between individuals, from two- to three-fold at peak-concentrations to up to 40-fold at trough-concentrations. Nineteen out of 21 (90%) patients had PK/PD parameters comparable to literature values. Twenty-one of 21 (100%) patients had appropriate duration of cefepime concentrations above the MIC (T>MIC >or= 50%) for the pathogens recovered in this study (MIC <or= 4 mg/l), but only 45 to 65% of them had appropriate coverage for potential pathogens with cefepime MIC >or= 8 mg/l. Moreover, 2/21 (10%) patients with renal impairment (CLCr < 30 ml/minute) demonstrated accumulation of cefepime in the plasma (trough concentrations of 20 to 30 mg/l) in spite of dosage adjustment. Both had symptoms compatible with non-convulsive epilepsy (confusion and muscle jerks) that were not attributed to cefepime-toxicity until plasma levels were disclosed to the caretakers and symptoms resolved promptly after drug arrest.

conclusionsThese empirical results confirm the suspected risks of hidden side-effects and inappropriate PK/PD parameters (for pathogens with upper-limit MICs) in a population of ICU adult patients. Moreover, it identifies a safety and efficacy window for cefepime doses of 2 g every 12 hours in patients with a CLCr >or= 50 ml/minute infected by pathogens with cefepime MICs <or= 4 mg/l. On the other hand, prompt monitoring of cefepime plasma levels should be considered in case of lower CLCr or greater MICs.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCephalosporinsCross InfectionEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPneumoniaProspective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID20359352
PMCPMC2887166
OpenAlexW2089600008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.