Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone/sulbactam in critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous hemofiltration.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of antibiotic concentrations in drug dispensing in neonates: a laboratory-based study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2023Article
- Case report: First case of pemetrexed plus cisplatin-induced immune hemolytic anemia in a patient with lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of cefoperazone sulbactam sodium combined with meropenem on the immune function in the treatment of neonatal pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Tolerability, Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Drug Interaction of Cefotaxime Sodium-Tazobactam Sodium Injection (6:1) Following Single and Multiple Intravenous Doses in Chinese Healthy Subjects.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Recommendation of Antimicrobial Dosing Optimization During Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Hemolytic Anemia and Reactive Thrombocytosis Associated With Cefoperazone/Sulbactam.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Retrospective comparative analysis of risk factors and outcomes in patients with carbapenem-resistantInfection and drug resistance · 2018Article
- Tracking Cefoperazone/Sulbactam Resistance Development In vivo in A. baumannii Isolated from a Patient with Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia by Whole-Genome Sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCefoperazone/sulbactam (CFP/SUL) is a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination with little data available for the development of effective dosing guidelines during continuous renal replacement therapy. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of cefoperazone/sulbactam in critically ill patients on continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH).
methodsA prospective, single-center, and open-label study was conducted. Critically ill patients receiving CVVH with 3 g cefoperazone/sulbactam (2.0/1.0 g) intravenously every 8 h were recruited. Serial blood and ultrafiltrate samples were paired collected for initial dose (occasion 1) and steady state (occasion 2). PK was assessed by non-compartmental analysis, and pharmacodynamics (PD) was evaluated by the percent of time for which drug concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (%T >MIC).
resultsTotal fourteen patients were enrolled. Volume of distribution at steady state (V ss) of cefoperazone and sulbactam for initial doses (20.8 ± and 28.4 L, respectively) increased significantly compared with those in healthy volunteers (P = 0.009 for CFP, P = 0.030 for SUL). Both cefoperazone and sulbactam showed significantly lower total clearance (CLt) (46.2 and 117.6 mL/min, respectively) compared with healthy volunteers (P = 0.000 for CFP, P = 0.017 for SUL). There is no significant difference in PK between occasion 1 and occasion 2 (P > 0.05). For occasion 1, mean CVVH clearance accounted for 34.3 and 33.9 % for CLt of cefoperazone and sulbactam, respectively. The minimum PD target of 60%T >MIC was achieved in seven of eight patients. For occasion 2, eight of nine patients achieved cefoperazone concentrations that were above the MIC for the entire dosing interval.
conclusionsPK of cefoperazone/sulbactam was altered in critically ill patients undergoing CVVH. Therapeutic drug monitoring would be recommended to individualize the dose regimen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.