ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2026
Protein Binding Determination of Cefepime, Flucloxacillin, Meropenem, Piperacillin and Tazobactam by Ultrafiltration in Critically Ill Patients: The Choice of Device Matters.
Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveTherapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and pharmacokinetic studies of beta-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients aim to define optimal dosing and require accurate measurement of unbound drug concentrations. This study compared the performance of two ultrafiltration devices, Centrifree and Amicon, for measuring unbound concentrations of cefepime, meropenem, flucloxacillin, piperacillin and tazobactam.
methodsNon-specific binding (NSB) was specifically assessed in phosphate-buffered saline, and unbound concentrations were measured using a chromatographic method in both spiked plasma and plasma samples from critically ill patients, in order to compare the two ultrafiltration devices.
resultsCentrifree exhibited no significant NSB for any antibiotics (≤ 15%), while Amicon displayed significant NSB for meropenem (26-61%), flucloxacillin (18-58%) and piperacillin (15-72%), resulting in lower unbound concentrations in both patient and spiked plasma samples compared to Centrifree. Additionally, piperacillin, and to a lesser extent flucloxacillin, demonstrated concentration-dependent NSB with Amicon. The comparative mean ± standard deviation of unbound fractions in intensive care unit (ICU) patients were as follows: cefepime, 0.85 ± 0.12 (Centrifree) versus 0.90 ± 0.10 (Amicon); meropenem, 0.87 ± 0.07 (Centrifree) versus 0.77 ± 0.05 (Amicon); flucloxacillin, 0.25 ± 0.13 (Centrifree) versus 0.18 ± 0.13 (Amicon); piperacillin, 0.91 ± 0.07 (Centrifree) versus 0.67 ± 0.13 (Amicon); and tazobactam, 0.97 ± 0.08 (Centrifree) versus 0.95 ± 0.08 (Amicon).
conclusionThese findings underscore significant differences in results between ultrafiltration devices, depending on the drug, influenced by NSB. Such factors should be considered when developing methods for determining unbound concentrations of beta-lactam antibiotics.
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.