Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27048201›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016

Population pharmacokinetics and probability of target attainment of meropenem in critically ill patients.

Francesca Mattioli, Carmen Fucile, Valerio Del Bono, Valeria Marini, Andrea Parisini, Alexandre Molin, Maria Laura Zuccoli, Giulia Milano, Romano Danesi, Anna Marchese and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Francesca MattioliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, n. 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy. francesca.mattioli@unige.it.
Carmen FucileDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, n. 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Valerio Del BonoInfectious Diseases Clinics, IRCCS A.O.U San Martino-IST, University of Genoa, Largo R. Benzi, n. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Valeria MariniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, n. 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Andrea ParisiniInfectious Diseases Clinics, IRCCS A.O.U San Martino-IST, University of Genoa, Largo R. Benzi, n. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Alexandre MolinAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Department Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, IRCCS A.O.U San Martino-IST, University of Genoa, Largo R. Benzi, n. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Maria Laura ZuccoliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, n. 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Giulia MilanoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, n. 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Romano DanesiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, n.10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Anna MarcheseSection of Microbiology-DISC, University of Genoa, Largo R. Benzi, n. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Marialuisa PolilloDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, n.10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Claudio ViscoliInfectious Diseases Clinics, IRCCS A.O.U San Martino-IST, University of Genoa, Largo R. Benzi, n. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Paolo PelosiAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Department Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, IRCCS A.O.U San Martino-IST, University of Genoa, Largo R. Benzi, n. 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Antonietta MartelliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, n. 2, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Antonello Di PaoloDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, n.10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
University of Genoa · ITUniversity of Pisa · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with Klebsiella pneumoniae infections are characterized by high mortality. The aims of the present study were to investigate the population pharmacokinetics parameters and to assess the probability of target attainment of meropenem in critically ill patients to provide information for more effective regimens.

methodsTwenty-seven consecutive patients were included in the study. Meropenem was administered as 3-h intravenous (i.v.) infusions at doses of 1-2 g every 8 or 12 h. Meropenem plasma concentrations were measured by a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method, and a population pharmacokinetics analysis was performed using NONMEM software. Meropenem plasma disposition was simulated for extended (3 h; 5 h) or continuous i.v. infusions, and the following parameters were calculated: time during which free drug concentrations were above minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (fT > MIC), free minimum plasma concentrations above 4× MIC (fCmin > 4× MIC), probability of target attainment (PTA), and cumulative fraction of response (CFR).

resultsGender and severity of sepsis affected meropenem clearance, whose typical population values ranged from 6.22 up to 12.04 L/h (mean ± standard deviation (SD) value, 9.38 ± 4.47 L/h). Mean C min value was 7.90 ± 7.91 mg/L, suggesting a high interindividual variability. The simulation confirmed that 88 and 97.5 % of patients achieved effective C min > 4× MIC values after 3- and 5-h i.v. infusions of meropenem 2 g × 3/day, respectively. On the contrary, the same total daily doses reached the target C min > 4× MIC values in 100 % of patients when administered as continuous i.v. infusions.

conclusionsSeveral factors may influence meropenem pharmacokinetics in ICU patients. Continuous i.v. infusions of meropenem seem to be more effective than standard regimens to achieve optimal therapeutic targets.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsCritical IllnessCross InfectionFemaleHumansInfusions, IntravenousKlebsiella InfectionsKlebsiella pneumoniaeMaleMeropenemMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalSepsisThienamycinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsMeropenemThienamycinsCritically ill patientsMeropenemPopulation pharmacokineticTherapeutic drug monitoring

Identifiers

PMID27048201
OpenAlexW2331841942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.