Pharmacokinetics of dosing regimens which utilize multiple intravenous infusions: Gentamicin in burn patients

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Sawchuk ◽  
Darwin E. Zaske
Keyword(s):  
Burn Patients ◽  
Intravenous Infusions ◽  
Dosing Regimens ◽  
Multiple Intravenous Infusions

scholarly journals Turnover Modeling of Non-Esterified Fatty Acids in Rats after Multiple Intravenous Infusions of Nicotinic Acid

Dose-Response ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. dose-response.0 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Isaksson ◽  
Johan Gabrielsson ◽  
Kristina Wallenius ◽  
Lambertus A. Peletier ◽  
Helena Toreson
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acids ◽  
Nicotinic Acid ◽  
Esterified Fatty Acids ◽  
Intravenous Infusions ◽  
Multiple Intravenous Infusions

Evaluation of Voriconazole and Posaconazole Dosing in Patients with Thermal Burn Injuries

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlin L Musick ◽  
Savannah L Jones ◽  
Ashlyn M Norris ◽  
Lauren J Hochstetler ◽  
Felicia N Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Therapeutic Level ◽  
Thermal Burn ◽  
Adequate Treatment ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Optimal Dosing ◽  
Dosing Regimens ◽  
Dosing Strategies

Abstract Fungal infections are a recognized cause of increased morbidity and mortality in thermal burn patients. Adequate treatment regimens remain a challenge due to unpredictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic changes caused by a hypermetabolic state and individual patient factors. A retrospective evaluation of adult thermal burn patients from April 2014 to April 2020 was conducted to assess voriconazole and posaconazole antifungal dosing regimens. The primary outcome was the incidence of attaining a therapeutic steady-state trough level on the patient’s initial voriconazole or posaconazole regimen. Of the 35 patients analyzed, 28 (80.0%) patients achieved a therapeutic level during azole therapy. However, only 13 (46.4%) patients achieved a therapeutic level on their first azole regimen. The median time to therapeutic level was 8.0 + 21.1 days from the start of azole therapy. Optimal dosing strategies for azole therapy in patients with thermal burns remains undefined. Further assessment is needed to delineate patient-specific factors that can contribute to subtherapeutic azole levels in thermal burn patients and the overall clinical impact of population-specific dosing regimens.

scholarly journals Pharmacokinetics of ofloxacin after single and multiple intravenous infusions in healthy subjects.

1988 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 1590-1592 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Farinotti ◽  
J H Trouvin ◽  
V Bocquet ◽  
N Vermerie ◽  
C Carbon
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Intravenous Infusions ◽  
Multiple Intravenous Infusions

scholarly journals Pharmacokinetics of Cefepime in Patients with Thermal Burn Injury

1999 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 2848-2854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Bonapace ◽  
Roger L. White ◽  
Lawrence V. Friedrich ◽  
E. Douglas Norcross ◽  
John A. Bosso
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Half Life ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Parameters ◽  
Albumin Concentration ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Serum Concentrations ◽  
Thermal Burn ◽  
Dosing Regimens

ABSTRACT The pharmacokinetics of cefepime following administration of a single 2-g dose were evaluated for 12 adult patients with thermal burn injury and suspected or documented infection. Serial blood and urine samples for cefepime concentration determination were obtained for 24 h following drug administration. Serum and urine cefepime concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography and serum concentrations were fit to a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age, actual body weight (ABW), percent total body surface area burned, and days postburn at the time of study were 41 (13) years, 84 (22) kg, 36 (17)%, and 9 (3) days, respectively. Mean (SD) measured creatinine clearance (CLCR), total clearance (CLT), renal clearance (CLR), alpha phase half-life, beta phase half-life, and volume of distribution at steady state (V SS) were 135 (31) ml/min, 8.8 (2.4) liters/h, 8.1 (2.0) liters/h, 0.33 (0.14) h, 2.8 (0.6) h, and 0.43 (0.10) liters/kg ABW, respectively. Cefepime CLT and CLR in burn patients were similar to previously reported values for healthy volunteers when normalized by CLCR. Stepwise multiple regression was used to associate CLT with CLCR and days postburn (r 2 = 0.861), CLRwith CLCR and days postburn (r 2 = 0.773), nonrenal clearance with percent third-degree (% 3°) burn and albumin concentration (r 2 = 0.550), andV SS only with % 3° burn (r 2 = 0.624). Simulated steady-state serum concentrations obtained by using the patients’ pharmacokinetic parameters exceeded the susceptibility interpretive standard (breakpoint) of cefepime for at least 60% of the dosing interval with dosing regimens of 1 g every 8 h (q8h), 2 g q8h, and 2 g q12h. Despite differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between our patients and healthy volunteers, it appears that these dosing regimens may be adequate in similar burn patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document