Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31925610›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2020

Clinical pharmacokinetics of 3-h extended infusion of meropenem in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: implications for empirical therapy against Gram-negative bacteria.

Amol T Kothekar, Jigeeshu Vasishtha Divatia, Sheila Nainan Myatra, Anand Patil, Manjunath Nookala Krishnamurthy, Harish Mallapura Maheshwarappa, Suhail Sarwar Siddiqui, Murari Gurjar, Sanjay Biswas, Vikram Gota

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07681544 (Meropenem Dosing in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-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.

NCT07681544 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Meropenem Dosing in Critically Ill Patients: Early Evaluation of Plasma Concentrations and Minimum Inhibitory Concentration

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Italiano de Buenos AiresRan2024 to 2025Enrolled26ConditionsEmpirical Antimicrobial Therapy, Critically Ill, Meropenem, Pharmacokinetics and PharmacodynamicsArmsBlood extraction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Antimicrobial Treatment ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amol T KothekarDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Jigeeshu Vasishtha DivatiaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. jdivatia@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7384-4886
Sheila Nainan MyatraDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Anand PatilDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, India.
Manjunath Nookala KrishnamurthyDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, India.
Harish Mallapura MaheshwarappaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Mazumdar Shaw Medical Centre, Narayana Health, Bengalore, India.
Suhail Sarwar SiddiquiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Murari GurjarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, India.
Sanjay BiswasDepartment of Microbiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Vikram GotaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, India.
Homi Bhabha National Institute · INKing George's Medical University · INNarayana Health · IN

Funding

Tata Memorial Centre Intramural grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimal anti-bacterial activity of meropenem requires maintenance of its plasma concentration (Cp) above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen for at least 40% of the dosing interval (fT > MIC > 40). We aimed to determine whether a 3-h extended infusion (EI) of meropenem achieves fT > MIC > 40 on the first and third days of therapy in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. We also simulated the performance of the EI with respect to other pharmacokinetic (PK) targets such as fT > 4 × MIC > 40, fT > MIC = 100, and fT > 4 × MIC = 100.

methodsArterial blood samples of 25 adults with severe sepsis or septic shock receiving meropenem 1000 mg as a 3-h EI eight hourly (Q8H) were obtained at various intervals during and after the first and seventh doses. Plasma meropenem concentrations were determined using a reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography assay, followed by modeling and simulation of PK data. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) definitions of MIC breakpoints for sensitive and resistant Gram-negative bacteria were used.

resultsA 3-h EI of meropenem 1000 mg Q8H achieved fT > 2 µg/mL > 40 on the first and third days, providing activity against sensitive strains of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. However, it failed to achieve fT > 4 µg/mL > 40 to provide activity against strains susceptible to increased exposure in 33.3 and 39.1% patients on the first and the third days, respectively. Modeling and simulation showed that a bolus dose of 500 mg followed by 3-h EI of meropenem 1500 mg Q8H will achieve this target. A bolus of 500 mg followed by an infusion of 2000 mg would be required to achieve fT > 8 µg > 40. Targets of fT > 4 µg/mL = 100 and fT > 8 µg/mL = 100 may be achievable in two-thirds of patients by increasing the frequency of dosing to six hourly (Q6H).

conclusionsIn patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, EI of 1000 mg of meropenem over 3 h administered Q8H is inadequate to provide activity (fT > 4 µg/mL > 40) against strains susceptible to increased exposure, which requires a bolus of 500 mg followed by EI of 1500 mg Q8H. While fT > 8 µg/mL > 40 require escalation of EI dose, fT > 4 µg/mL = 100 and fT > 8 µg/mL = 100 require escalation of both EI dose and frequency.

Indexed as

Anti-bacterial agentsAntimicrobial pharmacokineticsMeropenem dosingSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID31925610
PMCPMC6954163
OpenAlexW2999588157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.