Continuous beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients: the clinical evidence

  • Mohd H Abdul-Aziz1,

    Affiliated with

    • Joel M Dulhunty1, 2Email author,

      Affiliated with

      • Rinaldo Bellomo3,

        Affiliated with

        • Jeffrey Lipman1, 2 and

          Affiliated with

          • Jason A Roberts1, 2, 4

            Affiliated with

            Annals of Intensive Care20122:37

            DOI: 10.1186/2110-5820-2-37

            Received: 10 May 2012

            Accepted: 13 July 2012

            Published: 16 August 2012

            Abstract

            There is controversy over whether traditional intermittent bolus dosing or continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics is preferable in critically ill patients. No significant difference between these two dosing strategies in terms of patient outcomes has been shown yet. This is despite compelling in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data. A lack of significance in clinical outcome studies may be due to several methodological flaws potentially masking the benefits of continuous infusion observed in preclinical studies. In this review, we explore the methodological shortcomings of the published clinical studies and describe the criteria that should be considered for performing a definitive clinical trial. We found that most trials utilized inconsistent antibiotic doses and recruited only small numbers of heterogeneous patient groups. The results of these trials suggest that continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics may have variable efficacy in different patient groups. Patients who may benefit from continuous infusion are critically ill patients with a high level of illness severity. Thus, future trials should test the potential clinical advantages of continuous infusion in this patient population. To further ascertain whether benefits of continuous infusion in critically ill patients do exist, a large-scale, prospective, multinational trial with a robust design is required.

            Keywords

            Beta-lactam antibiotic Continuous infusion Critically ill Pharmacokinetic Pharmacodynamic Treatment outcome

            Review

            Introduction

            The mortality rate of severe sepsis and septic shock in critically ill patients remains high despite recent therapeutic advances. Swift and judicious antibiotic use in these patients is vital and any delays are associated with increases in mortality [1, 2]. Beta-lactam antibiotics are used commonly and are regarded as a cornerstone in the management of critically ill patients with severe sepsis in intensive care units (ICU) around the world [1, 3, 4]. However, the occurrence of severe pathophysiological changes, namely the fluid shift phenomenon [5] and augmented renal clearance [6], in critically ill patients may alter the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the antibiotics. Thus, appropriate dosing modifications should be applied to prevent inadequate antibiotic concentrations and therapeutic failure [5, 7, 8].

            Antibiotic pharmacodynamics (PD) is the discipline that attempts to relate PK parameters to the ability of an antibiotic to kill or inhibit the growth of bacterial pathogens [9]. Antibiotics can be classified based on these PD characteristics. Generally, antibiotics are classified into three categories based on their mode of bacterial killing: (1) concentration-dependent; 2) time-dependent; or 3) both (Figure 1). The first category includes antibiotics, such as aminoglycosides, where the best predictor of efficacy is the ratio of peak drug concentration (Cmax) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC; Cmax/MIC) [10, 11]. Some antibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and glycopeptides, are more complex and exhibit both a concentration and time-dependent kill characteristics where the best predictor of efficacy is the ratio of area under the concentration time curve during a 24-hour period (AUC0-24) to MIC (AUC0-24/MIC). Therefore, increasing the dose or/and concentration for these antibiotics can be logically expected to enhance the rate and extent of bacterial killing [12, 13]. In contrast, higher beta-lactam concentrations do not significantly influence their efficacy. Based on numerous in vitro and in vivo experimental data, it is the duration of effective antibiotic exposure that is more important for these time-dependent antibiotics [1417].
            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-37/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_97_Fig1_HTML.jpg
            Figure 1

            Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters of antibiotics on a concentration vs. time curve. T>MIC, time that a drug’s plasma concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for a dosing period; Cmax, maximum plasma antibiotic concentration; AUC0-24, area under the concentration-time curve during a 24-hour time period.

            The debate persists about whether traditional intermittent bolus dosing (IB) or continuous infusion (CI) is clinically preferable for administration of beta-lactam antibiotics. This is despite the fact that beta-lactam PD data suggest advantages for CI compared with IB [1824], showing time-dependent activity and demonstrating that the duration of time (T) the free drug concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC; f T>MIC) best describes its bacterial kill characteristics [15] (Figure 1). Thus, administration via CI should be advantageous, because it inevitably produces higher and sustained antibiotic concentrations above the MIC. It also is noteworthy that IB yields unnecessary high peak and low trough concentrations below MIC for much of the dosing interval [2528] (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The constant and sustainable antibiotic concentrations provided by CI are particularly important for pathogens with high MIC values. Such pathogens are relatively common in the ICU [2931].
            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-37/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_97_Fig2_HTML.jpg
            Figure 2

            The simulated concentration-time profile of a beta-lactam antibiotic when administered by intermittent bolus dosing or continuous infusion (Vd = 0.22 L/kg; T 1/2 = 2.45 hr). Intermittent bolus dosing (solid lines); continuous infusion (dotted lines).

            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-37/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_97_Fig3_HTML.jpg
            Figure 3

            Observed steady-state plasma and tissue concentrations for meropenem administered to critically ill patients with sepsis by intermittent bolus dosing and continuous infusion (adapted from Roberts et al. 2009, J Antimicrob Chemother). Continuous infusion (CI) meropenem plasma concentration (solid dark lines); IB meropenem plasma concentration (dotted grey lines); IB meropenem interstitial fluid concentration (ISF) (solid grey lines); CI meropenem ISF concentration (dotted dark lines).

            Despite these theoretical advantages, a global practice shift toward CI of beta-lactam antibiotics has not taken place. This is mostly because, although CI has been shown to be superior to IB dosing during in vitro [32, 33] and in vivo [3437] experimental studies, comparative clinical studies have so far failed to demonstrate significant differences in patient outcome. Furthermore, three recent meta-analyses of these clinical trials have found similar outcomes between CI and IB, in heterogeneous hospitalized patient populations [3840]. This dissociation between preclinical data and clinical reports raises uncertainty for the treating clinician. Importantly, most trials have important methodological flaws and have used inconsistent methods and therapeutic endpoints [29]. There also is a lack of general consensus about which patient groups should be investigated and the appropriate methodology that should be employed to identify whether clinical outcome differences between these two dosing approaches exist in all hospitalized patients. The possible advantages and disadvantages from the two dosing methods are further summarized in Table 1.
            Table 1

            Possible advantages and disadvantages of employing continuous or intermittent administration of beta-lactam antibiotics

            Administration method

            Advantages

            Disadvantages

            Continuous infusion

            More predictable antibiotic PK profiles

            Relatively new antibiotic administration method thus requiring intensive educational effort to update clinical staff on the administration method prior to implementation

             

            Lower antibiotic daily dose may be appropriate with continuous infusion

            Requires special infusion pumps and infusion bags that are costly

             

            Reduced drug acquisition costs when lower antibiotic doses are used

            Some beta-lactams (e.g., meropenem) are not stable under prolonged exposure at room temperature and may produce and enhance degradation products that cause hypersensitivity reactions

             

            Effective resource consumption (e.g., reduce the time required for pharmacists or nurses to prepare and administer antibiotic)

            Risk of drug wastage is high with this approach (e.g., when treatment ceased before infusion bag completed)

            Intermittent bolus

            Simple

            PK/PD targets may not be achieved (especially in critically ill patients)

             

            Does not require dedicated line access for drug administration (incompatibility issues unlikely)

            Neurological adverse effects are theoretically more possible with high Cmax

             

            Less likely to have unexpected device failures and dosing delivery rate errors

             

            The purpose of this review is to describe the published clinical trials and their associated methodological shortcomings in their comparison of CI and IB administration in hospitalized patients. Several intriguing issues or problems involved in the interpretation of results obtained from the available studies also will be highlighted. Finally, based on these discussions, description of a methodologically robust, definitive clinical trial will be proposed.

            PK/PD considerations

            The percentage (%) of f T>MIC (% f T>MIC) during a dosing interval is regarded as the optimal PD index for beta-lactam antibiotics, and as such, maintaining effective drug concentration above the MIC should be the priority when this antibiotic class is used. Specifically, the % f T>MIC needed for bacteriostasis and bactericidal is 35-40% and 60-70% for cephalosporins, 30% and 50% for penicillins, 20% and 40% for carbapenems, respectively [9, 33, 41, 42]. However, it is imperative to note that these indices should be regarded as the minimum PD endpoints and that they may not be adequate to treat severe infections and to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance [43]. Furthermore, emerging retrospective clinical data for critically ill patients suggest patient benefits with higher and longer antibiotic exposures than those described for the in vitro and in vivo experimental studies [44, 45]. Thus, it has been suggested that maintaining concentrations above the MIC for 90-100% of the dosing interval is a rational PD endpoint to ensure that the above minimum targets are achieved [46]. Combining the above data, beta-lactams should be more effective when delivered continuously to achieve a level above the MIC continuously throughout treatment. Alternatively, prolonging the infusion time via extended-infusion (EI), also has been suggested to maximize the f T>MIC for this antibiotic class without some of the CI-associated drawbacks outlined in Table 1 [47, 48]. Both CI and EI may be particularly advantageous in the treatment of severe infections.

            Inconsistent PD endpoints for comparison

            Different PD endpoints have been used in published studies, which make comparison between CI and IB difficult. However, several reviews have suggested that prolonged antibiotic exposures will achieve better PD profile [7, 49, 50]. Apparent benefits with regards to maximum bacterial killing also were reported in several studies when antibiotic concentrations were maintained above the MIC for extended periods, ideally four to five times the MIC especially when less susceptible microorganisms were involved [33, 44, 5155]. In combination with other PK/PD data, it is suggested that therapeutic targets for CI therapy should be a steady-state concentration (Css) that is at least 4 x MIC [33]. Thus, future comparative PK/PD studies should evaluate the relative ability of IB to achieve a trough concentration (Cmin) greater than the 4 x MIC of the offending pathogen for 40–70% of a dosing interval and for CI, a Css greater than 4 x MIC to prevent biased comparisons. It follows that the real challenge for IB is to obtain a Cmin greater than 4 x MIC in a severely ill patient who is infected with a pathogen with high MIC.

            The role of postantibiotic effect

            Another consideration for optimizing antibiotic pharmacokinetic exposure is the postantibiotic effect (PAE), i.e., the suppression of bacterial growth even with antibiotic concentrations below the MIC [56]. Although all antibiotics demonstrate PAE against susceptible gram-positive pathogens (i.e., staphylococci and streptococci), only some antibiotics, such as the aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones produce prolonged PAE for gram-negative pathogens [15]. In contrast, beta-lactams except for the carbapenems, produce minimal or no PAE against gram-negative pathogens. It follows that the reduced % f T>MIC required for carbapenems bacteriostatic (20%) and bactericidal (40%) activity may relate to the antibiotics PAE [5661]. Therefore, the need for frequent dosing and continuous administration is deemed supplemental when antibiotics such as carbapenems display significant PAE.

            Revision in antibiotic breakpoints

            The recent revision in antibiotic breakpoints to indicate if an organism is susceptible or resistant to different antibiotics, as classified by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST; available at http://​www.​eucast.​org/​clinical_​breakpoints/​) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; available at http://​www.​clsi.​org/​) have had an impact on how clinicians view and manage infections worldwide. These new rules also are applicable for interpretation of antibiotic PK/PD studies. Due to these changes, future studies need to be interpreted in light of the new susceptibility breakpoints [62]. These new rules may mean that the present dosing approaches are more or less likely to achieve PK/PD targets [29].

            The role of optimal PK/PD targets in the prevention of antibiotic resistance

            Antibiotic resistance patterns have significantly changed during the past 15 years with increasing resistance currently regarded as a major health crisis [63, 64]. Furthermore, the rate at which the pathogens are currently developing antibiotic resistance is likely to far outpace the rate of development of new antibiotics. Thus, optimizing the use of new or existing antibiotics via PK/PD principles may prolong their lifespan in clinical practice [42, 57]. Although numerous studies have been performed to determine the optimal PK/PD targets for clinical and bacteriological success, very little data exist that describe their roles in the prevention of bacterial resistance. However, extensive research in this area has been conducted with fluoroquinolones and more importantly, the corresponding optimal PD targets (i.e., AUC/MIC breakpoints) for resistance prevention has been described for this antibiotic class [6567]. The success with fluoroquinolones further emphasizes that PK/PD principles are not only relevant in bacterial eradication but also should be considered to minimize the development of bacterial resistance. For the beta-lactams, however, limited data are currently available, with the exception of several in vitro [68, 69] and in vivo experimental studies [70], which suggest the optimal PD targets for the prevention of resistance. Thus, appropriate targets are initially needed for this antibiotic class before a dosing regimen that minimizes resistance development can be recommended. Until convincing evidence becomes available, antibiotic dosing that targets concentrations greater than 4–6 x MIC for an extended interval should be aimed at to prevent resistance [33, 71, 72]. It also follows that once the targets are defined, it will then be possible to evaluate the relative ability of CI vs. IB in reducing the emergence of resistance associated with the use of beta-lactam antibiotics. However, several reviews have suggested that the currently proposed PK/PD target is probably best achieved by using CI or EI [29, 46].

            Controversies surrounding data interpretation

            Since the initial availability of antibiotics, methods to optimize antibiotic dosing have been explored [17, 73]. Numerous trials have been conducted with beta-lactams testing various dosing strategies in various patient populations [52, 7489]. The characteristics and findings of these relevant clinical trials are described in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. However, these studies have not defined whether altered dosing approaches are advantageous and which patient groups may benefit. Most of these trials were conducted in North America and Europe between 1979 and 2008 with all but two studies published after the year 2000 [88, 89]. A number of articles also have discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of CI [29, 31, 46, 90, 91]. Yet, the limitations of the existing studies have not been analyzed in detail and require further elaboration. Figure 4 briefly summarizes the current limitations associated with the available clinical trials.
            Table 2

            Characteristics of previously published studies for CI vs. IB of beta-lactam antibiotics

            Study

            Setting (country)

            Test antibiotic

            Critically ill?

            Patient population

            Sample size

            Age (yr) a

            Allocation sequence generator

            Allocation concealment

            Masking

            Concomitant antibiotics

            CI

            IT

            Angus et al. [87]

            Not specified (Thailand)

            Ceftazidime

            Yes

            Septicemic melioidosis

            21

            48 (29–58)

            43 (27–73)

            Not specified

            Not specified

            Not specified

            Amx/clv or doxy, tmp/smx and chlora

            Bodey et al. [89]

            Non-ICU (USA)

            Cefamandole

            No

            Malignant diseases with neutropenia

            204

            Not specified

            Adequate

            Adequate

            Not specified

            Carbenicillin

            Buck et al. [81]

            Non-ICU (Germany)

            Pip/tazo

            No

            Hospitalized infections

            24

            60-88b

            32-76b

            Not specified

            Adequate

            No

            Nil stated

            Buijk et al. [52]

            ICU (Netherlands)

            Ceftazidime

            Yes

            Intra-abdominal infections

            18

            12 (46–76)

            6 (42–87)

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Various

            Georges et al. [80]

            ICU (France)

            Cefepime

            Yes

            Critically ill with gram-negative infections

            50

            50 ± 17

            46 ± 24

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Amikacin

            Hanes et al. [86]

            ICU (USA)

            Ceftazidime

            Yes

            Critically ill trauma

            32

            33.5 ± 12.5

            36.1 ± 12.8

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Nil stated

            Kojika et al. [82]

            Not specified (Japan)

            Meropenem

            No

            Intra-abdominal infections

            10

            67.4 ± 14.6

            60 ± 12.8

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Nil stated

            Lagast et al. [88]

            Not specified (Belgium)

            Cefoperazone

            No

            Gram-negative septicaemia

            45

            37-77b

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Nil stated

            Lau et al. [79]

            ICU (USA)

            Pip/tazo

            No

            Complicated intra-abdominal infections

            262

            50.4 ± 16.6

            49.3 ± 17.8

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Nil stated

            Lubasch et al. [83]

            Not specified (Germany)

            Ceftazidime

            No

            Hospitalized patients with COPD exacerbation

            81

            65.3 ± 10.1

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Nil stated

            Nicolau et al. [84]

            ICU (USA)

            Ceftazidime

            Yes

            Critically ill patients with sepsis

            41

            46 ± 16

            56 ± 20

            Adequate

            Not specified

            No

            Tobramycin

            Pedeboscq et al. [85]

            ICU (France)

            Pip/tazo

            Yes

            Severe sepsis

            7

            58 ± 12

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Ofloxacin

            Rafati et al. [78]

            ICU (Iran)

            Piperacillin

            Yes

            Critically ill patients with sepsis

            40

            50.1 ± 22.2

            48.0 ± 20.7

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Amikacin

            Roberts et al. [75]

            ICU (Australia)

            Ceftriaxone

            Yes

            Critically ill patients with sepsis

            57

            43 ± 19

            52 ± 16

            Adequate

            Adequate

            Adequatec

            Multiple depending on indication

            Sakka et al. [77]

            ICU (Germany)

            Imi/cila

            Yes

            Critically ill patients with sepsis

            20

            62 ± 16

            59 ± 16

            Not specified

            Adequate

            No

            Nil stated

            Van Zanten et al. [76]

            Not specified (Netherlands)

            Cefotaxime

            No

            Hospitalized patients with COPD exacerbation

            93

            65.3 ± 8.4

            68.6 ± 5.3

            Not specified

            Not specified

            No

            Nil stated

            CI, continuous infusion; IB, intermittent bolus; Amx/clv, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid; doxy, doxycycline; tmp/smx, trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole; chlora, chloramphenicol; pip/tazo, piperacillin/tazobactam; Imi/cila, imipenem/cilastatin; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

            aValues are described as published results as mean (±SD) or median (range).

            bValues are reported as range.

            cOnly outcome assessment.

            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-37/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_97_Fig4_HTML.jpg
            Figure 4

            The summary of the current limitations and flaws associated with the available clinical trial.

            Heterogeneous patient populations

            Most of the relevant trials recruited hospitalized patients from different populations, especially the noncritically ill patient groups (Table 2). The diverse range of patient groups include critically ill patients with sepsis [75, 78, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88], trauma patients [86], patients with abdominal infections [79, 82], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients [76, 83], cancer [89], and nonspecific hospitalized infections [81]. Thus, meta-analyses have evaluated heterogenous patient groups and any potential benefits of CI or IB that may exist in a particular patient group were not assessed. This issue was previously discussed by Roberts et al. in their meta-analysis, where large confidence intervals were observed suggesting clinical differences may exist between CI and IB administration if more stringent and rigorous inclusion criteria were used in clinical studies [39].

            Inclusion of patients with a low level of illness severity

            Detecting significant difference between CI and IB is difficult because the potential benefits may be masked by the inclusion of low-risk patients that have much lower mortality rates than reported in epidemiological studies. This selection bias was further described in two recent meta-analyses [38, 39]. For example, two of the nine ICU studies that were meta-analyzed by Roberts et al. reported a mortality rate <10% when the mortality rate for severe sepsis is usually reported between 40% and 50% [9294] (Table 3). Other studies also recruited patients with low illness severity whereby more than 70% of the cohort presented with an Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score of only 10 [79]. This is a problem because any differences between CI and IB are more likely emerge in more severely ill patients [45, 87]. Critically ill patients with severe sepsis are more likely to benefit from CI, because they commonly develop severe pathophysiological changes, which may reduce effective antibiotic exposure [95]. Furthermore, these patients are usually infected with pathogens that are less susceptible to antibiotic therapy. Thus, in combination, the two important factors may reduce PK/PD target attainment in severely ill patients. In contrast, it has been shown that IB dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics achieves adequate PK/PD target for bacterial eradication in patients with low level of illness severity.
            Table 3

            Antibiotic dosage and outcome data of previously published for CI vs. IB of beta-lactam antibiotics

            Study

            Types of infection

            Number of patients (APACHE score a)

            Antibiotic dosage regimen

            Concurrent PK/PD analysis

            Clinical outcome measures

            CI

            IB

            p value

            CI

            IB

            CI

            IB

            Angus et al. [87]

            Melioidosis

            10 (15)

            11 (21)

            12 mg/kg LD, then 4 mg/kg every 1 hr

            40 mg/kg every 8 hr

            Yes

            Mortality

            20%

            36.4%

            0.89

            Bodey et al. [89]

            Pneumonia, UTI, septicemia and neutropenic fever

            167 (ND)

            162 (ND)

            3 g LD, then 12 g/24 hr

            3 g every 6 hr

            No

            Clinical cure

            64.8%

            56.5%

            ND

            Buck et al. [81]

            Pneumonia, cholangitis and FUO

            12 (ND)

            12 (ND)

            2 g LD then 8 g/24 hrb

            4 g every 8 hrb

            Yes

            Clinical response

            67%

            67%

            ND

            Buijk et al. [52]

            Intra-abdominal infections

            12 (16)

            6 (14)

            1 g LD then 4.5 g/24 hr

            1.5 g every 8 hr

            Yes

            Mortality

            25%

            33%

            1.0

            Georges et al. [80]

            Pneumonia and septicemia

            24 (45c)

            23 (44c)

            2 g/12 hrs twice daily

            2 g every 12 hr

            Yes

            Mortality

            12%

            13%

            NDd

            Clinical cure

            85%

            67%

            NDd

            Duration of MV

            24 ± 13

            25.3 ± 10

            NDd

            LOS ICU

            34 ± 17

            40 ± 15

            NDd

            Hanes et al. [86]

            Pneumonia

            17 (13)

            14 (11)

            2 g LD then 60 mg/kg every 24 hr

            2 g every 8 hr

            Yes

            Duration of MV

            22.9 ± 19.9

            13.3 ± 6.1

            0.16

            LOS ICU

            26.8 ± 20.1

            15.5 ± 5.9

            0.11

            LOS Hospital

            41.7 ± 30.5

            28.7 ± 15.9

            0.37

            Duration of leukocytosis

            7.8 ± 7.3

            11.3 ± 4.7

            0.35

            Duration of pyrexia

            7.9 ± 4.4

            4.3 ± 2.5

            0.06

            Kojika et al. [82]

            Abdominal abscess

            5 (ND)

            5 (ND)

            0.5 g every 8 hr (over 3 hr)

            0.5 g every 8 hr (over 30 min)

            No

            Mortality

            20%

            0%

             

            Lagast et al. [88]

            Septicemia

            20 (ND)

            25 (ND)

            Day 1: 1 g LD then 3 g/24 hr Day 2 +: 4 g/24 hr

            2 g every 12 hr

            No

            Mortality

            25%

            16%

            ND

            Clinical cure

            70%

            80%

            ND

            Lau et al. [79]

            Abdominal infections

            81 (8)

            86 (8)

            2 g LD then 12 g/24 hre

            3 g every 6 hre

            No

            Mortality

            0.76%

            2.6%

             

            Clinical cure

            86.4%

            88.4%

            0.817

            Adverse events

            89.2%

            87.1%

             

            Lubasch et al. [83]

            Chronic bronchitis

            41 (ND)

            40 (ND)

            2 g LD then 2 g/7 hr twice daily

            2 g every 8 hr

            Yes

            Clinical cure

            90.2%

            90%

            NDd

            Bacteriological cure

            90.2%

            87.5%

            NDd

            Nicolau et al. [84]

            Pneumonia

            17 (14)

            18 (16)

            1 g LD then 3 g/24 hrf

            2 g every 8 hrf

            No

            Clinical cure

            41%

            33%

            0.592

            Duration of MV

            7.9 ± 4.0

            8.3 ± 4.3

            0.97

            LOS ICU

            8.5 ± 3.4

            9.3 ± 4.0

            0.691

            Time to defervescence

            3.1 ± 2.1

            5.2 ± 2.3

            0.015

            WBC normalization

            7.3 ± 3.0g

            5.5 ± 4.2g

            0.259

            Pedeboscq et al. [85]

            Gastrointestinal-related infections

            3 (ND)

            4 (ND)

            12 g/24 hr

            4 g every 8 hr

            Yes

            Mortality

            0%

            0%

            ND

            Rafati et al. [78]

            Pneumonia, UTI, abdominal infections, SSI and septicemia

            20 (16)

            20 (14)

            2 g LD then 8 g/24 hr

            3 g every 6 hr

            Yes

            Mortality

            30%

            25%

            0.72

            Decrease in illness severity

              

            CI > ITh

            Duration of pyrexia

            2.4 ± 1.5

            1.7 ± 0.7

            0.08

            WBC normalization

            75%

            83%

            ND

            Roberts et al. [75]

            Septicemia

            29 (19)

            28 (16)

            0.5 g LD then 2 g/24 hr

            Day 1: 2.5 g/24 hr Day 2: 2 g/24 hr

            No

            Mortality

            10%

            0%

            0.25

            Clinical curei

            52%

            20%

            0.04

            Duration of MV

            4.3 ± 4.5

            3.4 ± 4.1

            0.33

            LOS ICU

            10.8 ± 23.2

            5.6 ± 6.0

            0.29

            LOS hospital

            42 ± 6.9

            24 ± 2.1

            0.34

            Sakka et al. [77]

            Pneumonia

            10 (26)

            10 (28)

            1 g LD then 2 g/24 hr

            1 g every 8 hr

            Yes

            Mortality

            10%

            20%

            ND

            Van Zanten et al. [76]

            COPD exacerbations

            40 (ND)

            43 (ND)

            1 g LD then 2 g/24 hr

            1 g every 8 hr

            Yes

            Clinical cure

            93%

            93%

            0.93

            APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score; CI, continuous infusion; IB, intermittent bolus; PK/PD, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic; UTI, urinary tract infection; FUO, fever of unknown origin; SSI, surgical site infection; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ND, not described; LD, loading dose; MV, mechanical ventilation; LOS, length of stay; ICU, intensive care unit; WBC, white blood cells.

            aValues are reported as mean.

            bDose reduction in renal dysfunction-if creatinine clearance 25–60 mL/min (CI group 6.75 g/24 hr; IT group 4.5 g q12hr); if creatinine clearance <25 mL/min (CI group 4.5 g/24 hr; IB group 4.5 g every 24 hr).

            cValues are SAPS II score.

            d P values for nonsignificance were not reported.

            eDose reduction in renal dysfunction-if creatinine clearance 20–40 mL/min (CI group 8 g-1 g/24 hr; IB group 2 g −0.25 g every 6 hr).

            fDose reduction in renal dysfunction-if creatinine clearance 31–50 mL/min (CI group 2.5 g/24 hr; IB group 2 g every 12 hr); if creatinine clearance 21–30 mL/min (CI group 2 g/24 hr; IB group 2 g every 24 hr).

            gx 109/L.

            hSignificant difference in APACHE II scores on days 2, 3, and 4.

            i A priori analysis.

            Inconsistent antibiotic dosing regimen

            Most of the studies included in the three meta-analyses utilized higher IB doses than the CI treatment arm, potentially favoring the former [7679, 81, 84, 86, 87] (Table 3). This treatment bias might have skewed the results of these meta-analyses towards the null hypothesis. Another logical conclusion is that a lower dose in the CI group was able to achieve equivalent outcomes to a higher dose in the IB group. A significant difference in clinical outcomes might emerge if the two approaches utilized the same daily dose. This notion has been supported by a meta-analysis, whereby clinical failures were less frequent in the CI group, when separate analyses were performed in trials which used the same total daily dose in the two treatment arms [40]. Furthermore, dosing inconsistency with regards to initial bolus administration of antibiotic was reported in several studies [80, 82, 85] (Table 3). An initial loading dose was not provided to the CI protocol in these studies. This approach delays attainment of target antibiotic concentrations compared with the IB group. To make the two dosing protocols comparable, an initial and equal loading dose of beta-lactam antibiotic should be provided to both groups.

            Pathogens with low MIC values

            The offending pathogens isolated in most of the clinical trials have MIC values that make them highly susceptible. Simulation data suggests that there will be little difference in the achievement of PK/PD targets for IB and CI if the pathogens involved are in the susceptible range. When less susceptible pathogens are present, the true potential benefits of CI may be seen because treatment failures are more likely with IB [27, 44, 57, 87]. This limitation has been highlighted in the two most recent meta-analyses and has been proposed as one of the contributing reasons why clinical differences between CI and IB of beta-lactams have not been found. This notion is supported by one randomized, clinical trial [87] and two retrospective, observational studies [45, 96], which were conducted in critically ill patients infected with gram-negative organisms. These studies reported clinical cure and mortality benefits favoring CI for pathogens with high MIC values.

            Concomitant administration of other antibiotics

            Another noteworthy limitation is that patients included in the available clinical trials were frequently prescribed concomitant antibiotics that, unrelated to the method of beta-lactam administration, may influence clinical outcome [38, 40]. Such additional antibiotics (aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones) provide adequate antimicrobial coverage for most gram-negative pathogens. Therefore, the exclusive contribution of beta-lactam antibiotics to patient outcomes will be poorly defined in these trials. However, in reality, beta-lactam antibiotics are usually administered in conjunction with an aminoglycosides especially when treating patients with severe infections. It follows that regardless of the beta-lactam administration method, the aminoglycosides or fluoroquinolones may be “protecting” patients from gram-negative pathogens during periods of inadequate beta-lactams concentration. A plausible explanation could be that the method of administering beta-lactams is not that important when additional gram-negative coverage (i.e., aminoglycosides or fluoroquinolones) is used.

            Insufficient sample sizes

            The lack of significance in the published results also may be attributed to the consistently small sample sizes that have been used to explore the effect of CI vs. IB. The typical study cohort size has varied from 10 to 531 patients but the majority of these trials studied less than 60 patients [52, 75, 77, 78, 8082, 84, 86, 88] (Table 2). The small sample sizes and heterogenous patient background in the clinical studies contribute to insufficient power to investigate the value of both dosing methods. Further to this, if the population of interest is critically ill patients, a single intervention in this setting in very unlikely to influence mortality and clinical cure [31] and, as a consequence, a much larger sample size is needed to show significance [21, 40, 80]. For instance, Roberts et al. calculated that a sample size of 560 patients in each dosing protocol would be needed to detect difference in bacteriological outcomes [75]. Considering the difficulties in achieving these numbers in critically ill patients, perhaps it is time for clinicians to fully acknowledge the importance of surrogate endpoints in the setting of a study. Clinical cure and ICU-free days are suitable surrogate endpoints and may be used as primary outcomes in a phase II study of this intervention.

            Other relevant concerns

            Apart from the discussion above, there are several other plausible reasons why clinical differences have not been established between CI and IB in previous trials. It is important to note that some patients, especially in the ICU, may have some degree of renal impairment on admission or during their hospital stay [9799]. Whereas a commonly prescribed beta-lactam dose may not be sufficient in patients with mild or no renal impairment, target antibiotic concentrations are more easily achieved in patients with moderate to advanced renal impairment [100]. Similarly, beta-lactam exposure will still be adequate in patients with significant renal impairment as antibiotic clearance is reduced, regardless of the drug administration method [19]. Finally, one of the strongest bodies of evidence suggesting the superiority of CI has been derived from in vivo or animal models. However, the metabolic pathways and tissue distribution patterns of an antibiotic in animals may differ from humans. In addition, more often than not, these animal models fail to mimic human sepsis [101, 102].

            Based on the discussion above, clearer insights regarding CI and IB administration in patients receiving beta-lactam antibiotics are emerging. Importantly, the results from previous clinical studies suggest that CI of beta-lactam antibiotics is unlikely to be advantageous for all hospitalized patients but may be important in specific patient cohorts. Thus, in an attempt to elucidate the true benefits, we contend that the patient population most likely to adequately test the putative benefits of continuous administration of beta-lactam antibiotics must involve 1) critically ill patients; 2) patients with higher level of illness severity (i.e., APACHE II score ≥ 15); 3) patients infected with less susceptible microorganisms; and 4) patients with gram-negative infections.

            Methodology concerns and the proposed characteristics of an “ideal” trial

            Several reviews have suggested the importance of designing and conducting a methodologically sound clinical trial in the investigation of CI versus IB antibiotic administration benefits in critically ill patients [29, 3840]. These recommendations cannot be overemphasized due to frequent reports of low methodological quality clinical studies. It also is noteworthy that a previous study, which utilized the most rigorous and stringent methods, was the only study to demonstrate a clinical cure advantage in favor of CI administration of beta-lactams [75]. The characteristics of an “ideal,” randomized, clinical trial to compare CI vs. IB administration of beta-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients are described in Table 4.
            Table 4

            Description of a randomized clinical trial that should be performed to investigate CI vs. IB beta-lactam antibiotics

            Criteria

            Comments

            Population

            Should only include patients with sepsis or severe sepsis

            Intervention

            Antibiotic dosing regimen should be similar between CI and IB group

            a. A loading dose should be given to continuous infusion group to ensure rapid attainment of target antibiotic concentration

            b. An equal daily antibiotic dose should be given to continuous and bolus administration group

            c. Antibiotic doses should be specified according to the patient’s body weight

            d. Concomitant administration of other non-beta-lactam antibiotics should be allowed

            PK/PD analysis

            Concurrent PK/PD analysis should be performed to support any findings

            a, Measurements of antibiotic concentrations should be performed as long as contributing sites have necessary infrastructure to ensure apt sampling

            b. PK/PD analysis should evaluate the relative ability of IB to achieve a Cmin greater than 4 x MIC of the offending pathogen for 40-70% of the dosing interval while for CI, a Css greater than 4 x MIC

            Methods

            Design

             

            Preferably multicenter in nature and recruits participants from different regions to improve generalizability of results

             

            Patients

             

            Define eligibility criteria for participants to be included into trial

            a. Definition of sepsis and severe sepsis should be described in detail

            b. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used should be explained

             

            Randomization

             

            Detailed explanation on allocation sequence generation development

             

            Detailed allocation concealment mechanism

             

            Blinding/masking

             

            Outcome evaluators for the trial should be blinded to participants management

             

            Endpoints

             

            a. Endpoints selection should include primary (clinical outcome) and secondary (PK/PD; adverse event) endpoints

             

            b. Data collection on the observed bacterial resistance in the two treatment arms should occur

            Most studies did not address the methods for allocation sequence generation and concealment further increasing the chance for selection bias [74, 76, 7888] (Table 2). In many studies, masking or blinded assessment of the study endpoints were not adequately addressed causing detection bias [74, 7684, 8689] (Table 2). In addition, most of the available studies have failed to have blinded clinicians to assess the clinical and bacteriological outcomes. Each of these issues increases the possibility of systematic errors in these studies.

            Ideally, the antibiotic dosing regimen in each treatment arm (i.e., CI and IB) should be comparable in terms of the provision of an initial loading dose with an equal daily antibiotic dose. Alternatively, a suitable surrogate endpoint, such as a cost-effective analysis, may be used to compare these two dosing approaches when unequal antibiotic doses are used between them. Concomitant administration of other non-beta-lactam antibiotics, such as the aminoglycosides or fluoroquinolones, in the setting of a study is appropriate considering that a single empirical therapy is unlikely to occur during antibiotic initiation in ICU patients [1, 4]. Furthermore, the concomitant administration of other antibiotics should be regarded as a limitation rather than a major flaw in future trials, because it reflects real clinical practice. However, the number of concomitant antibiotics that are used and their administration sequences in relation to the main study antibiotic should at least be described in the trials.

            Only a number of studies measured the antibiotic concentrations and included a concurrent PK/PD evaluation to confirm whether the dosing approaches were actually meeting their respective PK/PD endpoints (Table 3) [52, 7679, 86]. Hence, it is difficult to relate clinical outcomes to the respective antibiotic exposure obtained via the two approaches. It is imperative to note the difference in PK/PD endpoints with regards to CI and IB. In a comparison that reflects current practice, CI has to achieve a steady-state antibiotic concentration (Css) greater than 4 x MIC to be microbiologically more effective than IB. On the other hand, IB has to achieve an antibiotic concentration (Cmin) greater than 4 x MIC during the typical 40–70% of the dosing interval [29, 33, 87, 103]. Therefore, concentrations measurement and concurrent PK/PD analysis needs to be done in light of this information or the extent of antibiotic exposure may not occur as predicted and therefore the influence on clinical cure and mortality will never be understood. However, the concurrent analysis should only be considered “compelling” in future trials as long as contributing clinical sites have the necessary infrastructure to ensure apt antibiotic sampling. Errors in sampling, which are common in PK/PD studies, may result in inaccurate and faulty assessments with regards to the apparent benefits of either dosing approaches.

            Considering the rampant development of bacterial resistance, the exact role of altered dosing approaches to reduce the problem should be addressed. To date, studies investigating the impact of various beta-lactams dosing approaches and their associated risk of bacterial resistance are scarce [72]. However, it is interesting to note the findings of a recent prospective, multicenter, randomized study that compared the clinical benefits of EI doripenem vs. IB imipenem in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia [74]. The authors reported that only 18% of patients treated with EI developed resistance of P. aeruginosa compared with 50% who received the conventional imipenem dosing. This is one of the few recent studies to evaluate the relative ability of the two dosing approaches in the prevention of resistance; similar studies, particularly involving critically ill patients, should ensue. Although there are not enough prior clinical data to power a study in the ICU and describe the appropriate methodology, data collection on the observed resistance should be performed in future clinical trials investigating the two dosing approaches.

            Previously published studies have mostly been single-center in design. To our knowledge, only three studies were conducted as a multicenter study, and only two of the three studies were able to include more than 200 patients [74, 79, 83]. The need for more multicenter studies should be emphasized, because these studies will provide a stronger basis for subsequent generalization of any findings. Participation from different regions and countries in such studies also should be encouraged to facilitate generalization even more to an extent of a possible global practice change.

            Because of the cost of large-scale trials, a step-wise approach to consider potential problems and feasibility is desirable. An initial pilot study before proceeding with a larger multicenter trial is beneficial. In this regard, the Beta-lactam Infusion Group’s feasibility study (BLING I) has now led to the design of large clinical outcome study, BLING II. BLING I (Dulhunty et al., unpublished results; ACTRN12610000238077) was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, double dummy, pilot, randomized, controlled trial enrolling 60 critically ill patients from 5 ICUs across Australia and Hong Kong. The primary endpoint of the study was to establish the PK separation between CI and IB in terms of achieving plasma antibiotic concentrations above the MIC of causative pathogens. The PK findings in BLING I demonstrated significant differences in plasma antibiotic concentrations above MIC favoring the CI group (CI; 81.8% vs. IB; 28.6%, p = 0.001), thus supporting the notion of PK/PD superiority associated with continuous administration. Clinical cure also was superior in the CI group (CI; 70.0% vs. IB; 43.3%, p = 0.037). Other relevant findings include the feasibility of the proposed randomization and blinding process used by the BLING I investigators and the suggestion of appropriate surrogate endpoints for survival to be utilized in a multicenter study. Thus, based on the findings from BLING I, BLING II was designed with rigorous and stringent methods to answer the ultimate question of whether administration of beta-lactam antibiotics by CI will result in improved outcomes for patients with severe sepsis. BLING II is a phase II, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial that will recruit critically ill patients with severe sepsis in several ICUs in New Zealand as well as Australia and Hong Kong. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded clinical trial aims to compare the effects of two approaches to the administration of beta-lactam antibiotics (i.e., CI vs. IB) on ICU-free days up to day 28.

            Conclusions

            Although numerous PK/PD data from various in vitro and in vivo experimental studies favor the use of continuous infusion, the current clinical data are less convincing and insufficient to instigate a global shift from conventional bolus dosing. However, this lack of convincing data may be due to several methodological flaws and inconsistencies among the available studies, thus contributing toward insufficient power to detect any significant differences between CI and IB, if they exist. Based on the published literature, it can be concluded that CI of beta-lactams will not be beneficial to all patients but may potentially be beneficial to specific subsets of patients. If any patient group is likely to benefit from CI, it may be critically ill patients with severe infections. If benefits from CI do exist in critically ill patients, a large-scale, prospective, multinational trial with a robust design is required. A step-wise approach to conduct such clinical trials has begun and already shows promise. A phase II study involving 420 patients is about to start and will provide high-quality information to confirm or refute the need for a pivotal phase III double-blinded RCT of CI vs. beta-lactam dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis.

            Abbreviations

            PK: 

            Pharmacokinetics

            PD: 

            Pharmacodynamics

            ICU: 

            Intensive care unit

            MIC: 

            Minimal inhibitory concentration

            Cmax: 

            Maximal concentration

            AUC0-24: 

            Area under the concentration time curve during a 24-hour period

            AUC0-24/MIC: 

            Ratio of area under the concentration time curve during a 24-hour period

            PAE: 

            Post antibiotic effect

            CI: 

            Continuous infusion

            IB: 

            Intermittent bolus

            EI: 

            Extended infusion

            Cmin: 

            Lowest concentration

            APACHE II: 

            Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation II

            T: 

            Time

            Css: 

            Steady-state concentration

            BLING: 

            Beta-lactam Infusion Group

            NHMRC: 

            Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

            RCT: 

            Randomized controlled trial

            ISF: 

            Interstitial fluid.

            Declarations

            Acknowledgments

            Dr. Jason Roberts is funded by a fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Australian Based Health Professional Research Fellowship 569917).

            Authors’ Affiliations

            (1)
            Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, University of Queensland
            (2)
            Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Woman’s Hospital
            (3)
            Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital
            (4)
            Pharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Woman’s Hospital

            References

            1. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, et al.: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 2008, 34: 17–60. 10.1007/s00134-007-0934-2PubMed CentralPubMed
            2. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L, et al.: Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 1589–1596. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9PubMed
            3. Dulhunty JM, Paterson D, Webb SA, Lipman J: Antimicrobial utilisation in 37 Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011, 39: 231–237.PubMed
            4. Dulhunty JM, Webb SA, Paterson DL, Bellomo R, Myburgh J, Roberts JA, Lipman J: A survey of antibiotic prescribing practices in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Crit Care Resusc 2010, 12: 162–170.PubMed
            5. Pinder M, Bellomo R, Lipman J: Pharmacological principles of antibiotic prescription in the critically ill. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002, 30: 134–144.PubMed
            6. Udy AA, Varghese JM, Altukroni M, Briscoe S, McWhinney B, Ungerer J, Lipman J, Roberts JA: Sub-therapeutic initial beta-lactam concentrations in select critically ill patients: association between augmented renal clearance and low trough drug concentrations. Chest 2012, 142: 30–39.PubMed
            7. Goncalves-Pereira J, Povoa P: Antibiotics in critically ill patients: a systematic review of the pharmacokinetics of beta-lactams. Crit Care 2011, 15: R206. 10.1186/cc10441PubMed CentralPubMed
            8. Roberts JA, Lipman J: Pharmacokinetic issues for antibiotics in the critically ill patient. Crit Care Med 2009, 37: 840–851. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181961bffPubMed
            9. Craig WA: Basic pharmacodynamics of antibacterials with clinical applications to the use of beta-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2003, 17: 479–501. 10.1016/S0891-5520(03)00065-5PubMed
            10. Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR: Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis 1987, 155: 93–99. 10.1093/infdis/155.1.93PubMed
            11. Moore RD, Smith CR, Lietman PS: Association of aminoglycoside plasma levels with therapeutic outcome in gram-negative pneumonia. Am J Med 1984, 77: 657–662. 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90358-9PubMed
            12. Freeman CD, Nicolau DP, Belliveau PP, Nightingale CH: Once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides: review and recommendations for clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997, 39: 677–686. 10.1093/jac/39.6.677PubMed
            13. Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH, Goss TF, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ: Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993, 37: 1073–1081. 10.1128/AAC.37.5.1073PubMed CentralPubMed
            14. Drusano GL: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials. Clin Infect Dis 2007,45(Suppl 1):S89–95.PubMed
            15. Craig WA: Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 26: 1–10. 10.1086/516284PubMed
            16. Craig WA: Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995, 22: 89–96. 10.1016/0732-8893(95)00053-DPubMed
            17. Eagle H, Fleischman R: Levy M. "Continuous" vs. "discontinuous" therapy with penicillin; the effect of the interval between injections on therapeutic efficacy. N Engl J Med 1953, 248: 481–488.PubMed
            18. Roberts JA, Roberts MS, Robertson TA, Dalley AJ, Lipman J: Piperacillin penetration into tissue of critically ill patients with sepsis–bolus versus continuous administration? Crit Care Med 2009, 37: 926–933. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181968e44PubMed
            19. Langgartner J, Vasold A, Gluck T, Reng M, Kees F: Pharmacokinetics of meropenem during intermittent and continuous intravenous application in patients treated by continuous renal replacement therapy. Intensive Care Med 2008, 34: 1091–1096. 10.1007/s00134-008-1034-7PubMed
            20. De Jongh R, Hens R, Basma V, Mouton JW, Tulkens PM, Carryn S: Continuous versus intermittent infusion of temocillin, a directed spectrum penicillin for intensive care patients with nosocomial pneumonia: stability, compatibility, population pharmacokinetic studies and breakpoint selection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008, 61: 382–388.PubMed
            21. Roberts JA, Lipman J: Antibacterial dosing in intensive care: pharmacokinetics, degree of disease and pharmacodynamics of sepsis. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006, 45: 755–773. 10.2165/00003088-200645080-00001PubMed
            22. Li C, Kuti JL, Nightingale CH, Mansfield DL, Dana A, Nicolau DP: Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005, 56: 388–395. 10.1093/jac/dki243PubMed
            23. Buijk SE, Gyssens IC, Mouton JW, Metselaar HJ, Groenland TH, Verbrugh HA, Bruining HA: Perioperative pharmacokinetics of cefotaxime in serum and bile during continuous and intermittent infusion in liver transplant patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004, 54: 199–205. 10.1093/jac/dkh268PubMed
            24. Benko AS, Cappelletty DM, Kruse JA, Rybak MJ: Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996, 40: 691–695.PubMed CentralPubMed
            25. Lipman J, Wallis SC, Rickard CM, Fraenkel D: Low cefpirome levels during twice daily dosing in critically ill septic patients: pharmacokinetic modelling calls for more frequent dosing. Intensive Care Med 2001, 27: 363–370. 10.1007/s001340000741PubMed
            26. Lipman J, Gomersall CD, Gin T, Joynt GM, Young RJ: Continuous infusion ceftazidime in intensive care: a randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999, 43: 309–311. 10.1093/jac/43.2.309PubMed
            27. Lipman J, Wallis SC, Rickard C: Low plasma cefepime levels in critically ill septic patients: pharmacokinetic modeling indicates improved troughs with revised dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999, 43: 2559–2561.PubMed CentralPubMed
            28. Young RJ, Lipman J, Gin T, Gomersall CD, Joynt GM, Oh TE: Intermittent bolus dosing of ceftazidime in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997, 40: 269–273. 10.1093/jac/40.2.269PubMed
            29. Mohd Hafiz AA, Staatz CE, Kirkpatrick CM, Lipman J, Roberts JA: Continuous infusion vs. bolus dosing: implications for beta-lactam antibiotics. Minerva Anestesiol 2012 2012, 78: 94–104.
            30. Roberts JA, Kirkpatrick CM, Roberts MS, Robertson TA, Dalley AJ, Lipman J: Meropenem dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis and without renal dysfunction: intermittent bolus versus continuous administration? Monte Carlo dosing simulations and subcutaneous tissue distribution. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009, 64: 142–150. 10.1093/jac/dkp139PubMed
            31. Roberts JA, Paratz J, Paratz E, Krueger WA, Lipman J: Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe infections: a review of its role. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007, 30: 11–18. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.02.002PubMed
            32. Alou L, Aguilar L, Sevillano D, Gimenez MJ, Echeverria O, Gomez-Lus ML, Prieto J: Is there a pharmacodynamic need for the use of continuous versus intermittent infusion with ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa? An in vitro pharmacodynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005, 55: 209–213. 10.1093/jac/dkh536PubMed
            33. Mouton JW, den Hollander JG: Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa during continuous and intermittent infusion of ceftazidime in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994, 38: 931–936. 10.1128/AAC.38.5.931PubMed CentralPubMed
            34. Roosendaal R, Bakker-Woudenberg IA: van den Berghe-van Raffe M, Michel MF: Continuous versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in experimental Klebsiella pneumoniae pneumonia in normal and leukopenic rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986, 30: 403–408. 10.1128/AAC.30.3.403PubMed CentralPubMed
            35. Roosendaal R, Bakker-Woudenberg IA, van den Berg JC, Michel MF: Therapeutic efficacy of continuous versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in an experimental Klebsiella pneumoniae pneumonia in rats. J Infect Dis 1985, 152: 373–378. 10.1093/infdis/152.2.373PubMed
            36. Mordenti JJ, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH: Combination antibiotic therapy: comparison of constant infusion and intermittent bolus dosing in an experimental animal model. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985, 15: 313–321.PubMed
            37. Gerber AU, Craig WA, Brugger HP, Feller C, Vastola AP, Brandel J: Impact of dosing intervals on activity of gentamicin and ticarcillin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in granulocytopenic mice. J Infect Dis 1983, 147: 910–917. 10.1093/infdis/147.5.910PubMed
            38. Tamma PD, Putcha N, Suh YD, Van Arendonk KJ, Rinke ML: Does prolonged beta-lactam infusions improve clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusions? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. BMC Infect Dis 2011, 11: 181. 10.1186/1471-2334-11-181PubMed CentralPubMed
            39. Roberts JA, Webb S, Paterson D, Ho KM, Lipman J: A systematic review on clinical benefits of continuous administration of beta-lactam antibiotics. Crit Care Med 2009, 37: 2071–2078. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a0054dPubMed
            40. Kasiakou SK, Sermaides GJ, Michalopoulos A, Soteriades ES, Falagas ME: Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibiotics: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2005, 5: 581–589. 10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70218-8PubMed
            41. Mouton JW, Punt N, Vinks AA: Concentration-effect relationship of ceftazidime explains why the time above the MIC is 40 percent for a static effect in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007, 51: 3449–3451. 10.1128/AAC.01586-06PubMed CentralPubMed
            42. Drusano GL: Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: critical interactions of 'bug and drug'. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004, 2: 289–300. 10.1038/nrmicro862PubMed
            43. Scaglione F, Paraboni L: Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of antibacterials in the Intensive Care Unit: setting appropriate dosing regimens. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008, 32: 294–301. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.03.015PubMed
            44. McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Schentag JJ: Evaluation of area under the inhibitory curve (AUIC) and time above the minimum inhibitory concentration (T > MIC) as predictors of outcome for cefepime and ceftazidime in serious bacterial infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008, 31: 345–351. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.12.009PubMed
            45. Lodise TP: Lomaestro B, Drusano GL: Piperacillin-tazobactam for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: clinical implications of an extended-infusion dosing strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2007, 44: 357–363. 10.1086/510590PubMed
            46. Sinnollareddy MG, Roberts MS, Lipman J, Roberts JA: Beta-lactam Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics in critically ill patients and strategies for dose-optimisation - a structured review. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2012, 39: 489–496. 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2012.05715.xPubMed
            47. Chytra I, Stepan M, Benes J, Pelnar P, Zidkova A, Bergerova T, Pradl R, Kasal E: Clinical and microbiological efficacy of continuous versus intermittent application of meropenem in critically ill patients: a randomized open-label controlled trial. Crit Care 2012, 16: R113. 10.1186/cc11405PubMed CentralPubMed
            48. Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S, Punyo J: Comparison of the pharmacodynamics of meropenem in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia following administration by 3-hour infusion or bolus injection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005, 49: 1337–1339. 10.1128/AAC.49.4.1337-1339.2005PubMed CentralPubMed
            49. Nicolau DP: Pharmacodynamic optimization of beta-lactams in the patient care setting. Crit Care 2008,12(Suppl 4):S2. 10.1186/cc6818PubMed CentralPubMed
            50. Kasiakou SK, Lawrence KR, Choulis N, Falagas ME: Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibacterials with time-dependent action: a systematic review of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Drugs 2005, 65: 2499–2511. 10.2165/00003495-200565170-00006PubMed
            51. Ariano RE, Nyhlen A, Donnelly JP, Sitar DS, Harding GK, Zelenitsky SA: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem in febrile neutropenic patients with bacteremia. Ann Pharmacother 2005, 39: 32–38.PubMed
            52. Buijk SL, Gyssens IC, Mouton JW, Van Vliet A, Verbrugh HA, Bruining HA: Pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime in serum and peritoneal exudate during continuous versus intermittent administration to patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002, 49: 121–128. 10.1093/jac/49.1.121PubMed
            53. Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S, Ingviya N: Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of cefepime in patients with Gram-negative bacilli bacteraemia. J Pharm Pharmacol 2002, 54: 1693–1696.PubMed
            54. Mouton JW, Vinks AA, Punt NC: Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of activity of ceftazidime during continuous and intermittent infusion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997, 41: 733–738.PubMed CentralPubMed
            55. Gentry LO, Rodriguez-Gomez G: Randomized comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime for treatment of skin, surgical wound, and complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991, 35: 2371–2374. 10.1128/AAC.35.11.2371PubMed CentralPubMed
            56. Rodvold KA: Pharmacodynamics of antiinfective therapy: taking what we know to the patient's bedside. Pharmacotherapy 2001, 21: 319S-330S. 10.1592/phco.21.18.319S.33904PubMed
            57. Drusano GL: Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 2003, 36: S42–50. 10.1086/344653PubMed
            58. White R, Friedrich L, Burgess D, Warkentin D, Bosso J: Comparative in vitro pharmacodynamics of imipenem and meropenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996, 40: 904–908.PubMed CentralPubMed
            59. Hanberger H, Nilsson LE, Maller R, Nilsson M: Pharmacodynamics of beta-lactam antibiotics on gram-negative bacteria: initial killing, morphology and postantibiotic effect. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1990, 74: 118–123.PubMed
            60. Craig WA, Ebert SC: Killing and regrowth of bacteria in vitro: a review. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1990, 74: 63–70.PubMed
            61. Bustamante CI, Drusano GL, Tatem BA, Standiford HC: Postantibiotic effect of imipenem on Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984, 26: 678–682. 10.1128/AAC.26.5.678PubMed CentralPubMed
            62. Andes D, Craig WA: Treatment of infections with ESBL-producing organisms: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005,11(Suppl 6):10–17.PubMed
            63. Livermore DM: Fourteen years in resistance. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012, 39: 283–294. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.12.012PubMed
            64. Chahine EB, Ferrill MJ, Poulakos MN: Doripenem: a new carbapenem antibiotic. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010, 67: 2015–2024. 10.2146/ajhp090672PubMed
            65. Jumbe N, Louie A, Leary R, Liu W, Deziel MR, Tam VH, Bachhawat R, Freeman C, Kahn JB, Bush K, et al.: Application of a mathematical model to prevent in vivo amplification of antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations during therapy. J Clin Invest 2003, 112: 275–285.PubMed CentralPubMed
            66. Freire AT, Melnyk V, Kim MJ, Datsenko O, Dzyublik O, Glumcher F, Chuang YC, Maroko RT, Dukart G, Cooper CA, et al.: Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2010, 68: 140–151. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.05.012PubMed
            67. Thomas JK, Forrest A, Bhavnani SM, Hyatt JM, Cheng A, Ballow CH, Schentag JJ: Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998, 42: 521–527.PubMed CentralPubMed
            68. Hubert D, Le Roux E, Lavrut T, Wallaert B, Scheid P, Manach D, Grenet D, Sermet-Gaudelus I, Ramel S, Cracowski C, et al.: Continuous versus intermittent infusions of ceftazidime for treating exacerbation of cystic fibrosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009, 53: 3650–3656. 10.1128/AAC.00174-09PubMed CentralPubMed
            69. Odenholt I, Gustafsson I, Lowdin E, Cars O: Suboptimal antibiotic dosage as a risk factor for selection of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: in vitro kinetic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003, 47: 518–523. 10.1128/AAC.47.2.518-523.2003PubMed CentralPubMed
            70. Fantin B, Farinotti R, Thabaut A, Carbon C: Conditions for the emergence of resistance to cefpirome and ceftazidime in experimental endocarditis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994, 33: 563–569. 10.1093/jac/33.3.563PubMed
            71. Tam VH, Schilling AN, Neshat S, Poole K, Melnick DA, Coyle EA: Optimization of meropenem minimum concentration/MIC ratio to suppress in vitro resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005, 49: 4920–4927. 10.1128/AAC.49.12.4920-4927.2005PubMed CentralPubMed
            72. Roberts JA, Kruger P, Paterson DL, Lipman J: Antibiotic resistance–what's dosing got to do with it? Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 2433–2440. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318180fe62PubMed
            73. Eagle H, Fleischman R, Musselman AD: Effect of schedule of administration on the therapeutic efficacy of penicillin; importance of the aggregate time penicillin remains at effectively bactericidal levels. Am J Med 1950, 9: 280–299. 10.1016/0002-9343(50)90425-6PubMed
            74. Chastre J, Wunderink R, Prokocimer P, Lee M, Kaniga K, Friedland I: Efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of doripenem versus imipenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized study. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 1089–1096. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181691b99PubMed
            75. Roberts JA, Boots R, Rickard CM, Thomas P, Quinn J, Roberts DM, Richards B, Lipman J: Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007, 59: 285–291.PubMed
            76. Van Zanten AR, Oudijk M, Nohlmans-Paulssen MK, van der Meer YG, Girbes AR, Polderman KH: Continuous vs. intermittent cefotaxime administration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory tract infections: pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, bacterial susceptibility and clinical efficacy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007, 63: 100–109. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02730.xPubMed CentralPubMed
            77. Sakka SG, Glauner AK, Bulitta JB, Kinzig-Schippers M, Pfister W, Drusano GL, Sorgel F: Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of continuous versus short-term infusion of imipenem-cilastatin in critically ill patients in a randomized, controlled trial. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007, 51: 3304–3310. 10.1128/AAC.01318-06PubMed CentralPubMed
            78. Rafati MR, Rouini MR, Mojtahedzadeh M, Najafi A, Tavakoli H, Gholami K, Fazeli MR: Clinical efficacy of continuous infusion of piperacillin compared with intermittent dosing in septic critically ill patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006, 28: 122–127. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.02.020PubMed
            79. Lau WK, Mercer D, Itani KM, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL, Mansfield D, Dana A: Randomized, open-label, comparative study of piperacillin-tazobactam administered by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006, 50: 3556–3561. 10.1128/AAC.00329-06PubMed CentralPubMed
            80. Georges B: Conil JM, Cougot P, Decun JF, Archambaud M, Seguin T, Chabanon G, Virenque C, Houin G. Saivin S: Cefepime in critically ill patients: continuous infusion vs. an intermittent dosing regimen. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005, 43: 360–369.PubMed
            81. Buck C, Bertram N, Ackermann T, Sauerbruch T, Derendorf H, Paar WD: Pharmacokinetics of piperacillin-tazobactam: intermittent dosing versus continuous infusion. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005, 25: 62–67. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2004.08.012PubMed
            82. Kojika M, Sato N, Hakozaki M, Suzuki Y, Takahasi G, Endo S, Suzuki K, Wakabayasi G: A preliminary study of the administration of carbapenem antibiotics in sepsis patients on the basis of the administration time. Jpn J Antibiot 2005, 58: 452–457. 10.1038/ja.2005.59PubMed
            83. Lubasch A, Luck S, Lode H, Mauch H, Lorenz J, Bolcskei P, Welte T, Group CS: Optimizing ceftazidime pharmacodynamics in patients with acute exacerbation of severe chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003, 51: 659–664. 10.1093/jac/dkg111PubMed
            84. Nicolau DP, McNabb J, Lacy MK, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH: Continuous versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in intensive care unit patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001, 17: 497–504. 10.1016/S0924-8579(01)00329-6PubMed
            85. Pedeboscq S, Dubau B, Frappier S, Hernandez V, Veyssieres D, Winnock S, Pometan JP: Comparison of 2 administration protocols (continuous or discontinuous) of a time-dependent antibiotic, Tazocin. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2001, 49: 540–547. 10.1016/S0369-8114(01)00210-3
            86. Hanes SD, Wood GC, Herring V, Croce MA, Fabian TC, Pritchard E, Boucher BA: Intermittent and continuous ceftazidime infusion for critically ill trauma patients. Am J Surg 2000, 179: 436–440. 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00388-3PubMed
            87. Angus BJ, Smith MD, Suputtamongkol Y, Mattie H, Walsh AL, Wuthiekanun V, Chaowagul W, White NJ: Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of ceftazidime continuous infusion vs intermittent bolus injection in septicaemic melioidosis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000, 50: 184–191. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2000.00179.xPubMed CentralPubMed
            88. Lagast H, Meunier-Carpentier F, Klastersky J: Treatment of gram-negative bacillary septicemia with cefoperazone. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1983, 2: 554–558. 10.1007/BF02016564PubMed
            89. Bodey GP, Ketchel SJ, Rodriguez V: A randomized study of carbenicillin plus cefamandole or tobramycin in the treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients. Am J Med 1979, 67: 608–616. 10.1016/0002-9343(79)90242-0PubMed
            90. Mouton JW, Vinks AA: Continuous infusion of beta-lactams. Curr Opin Crit Care 2007, 13: 598–606. 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282e2a98fPubMed
            91. Craig WA, Ebert SC: Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992, 36: 2577–2583. 10.1128/AAC.36.12.2577PubMed CentralPubMed
            92. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Finfer S, Gardlund B, Marshall JC, Rhodes A, Artigas A, et al.: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2012, 366: 2055–2064. 10.1056/NEJMoa1202290PubMed
            93. Duszynska W, Taccone FS, Switala M, Hurkacz M, Kowalska-Krochmal B, Kubler A: Continuous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a pilot study on efficacy and costs. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012, 39: 153–158. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.10.011PubMed
            94. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, Ranieri VM, Reinhart K, Gerlach H, Moreno R, Carlet J, Le Gall JR, Payen D: Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients I: Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 344–353. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000194725.48928.3APubMed
            95. Udy AA, Roberts JA, De Waele JJ, Paterson DL, Lipman J: What's behind the failure of emerging antibiotics in the critically ill? Understanding the impact of altered pharmacokinetics and augmented renal clearance. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012, 39: 455–457. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.02.010PubMed
            96. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Martin MM, Iribarren JL, Jimenez JJ, Mora ML: Clinical cure of ventilator-associated pneumonia treated with piperacillin/tazobactam administered by continuous or intermittent infusion. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009, 33: 464–468. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.10.025PubMed
            97. Bagshaw SM, George C, Dinu I, Bellomo R: A multi-centre evaluation of the RIFLE criteria for early acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008, 23: 1203–1210.PubMed
            98. Kellum JA: Acute kidney injury. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: S141–145. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318168c4a4PubMed
            99. Hoste EA, Clermont G, Kersten A, Venkataraman R, Angus DC, De Bacquer D, Kellum JA: RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis. Crit Care 2006, 10: R73. 10.1186/cc4915PubMed CentralPubMed
            100. Boselli E, Breilh D, Rimmele T, Guillaume C, Xuereb F, Saux MC, Bouvet L, Chassard D, Allaouchiche B: Alveolar concentrations of piperacillin/tazobactam administered in continuous infusion to patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 1500–1506. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318170ba21PubMed
            101. Dyson A, Singer M: Animal models of sepsis: why does preclinical efficacy fail to translate to the clinical setting? Crit Care Med 2009, 37: S30–37. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181922bd3PubMed
            102. Rittirsch D, Hoesel LM, Ward PA: The disconnect between animal models of sepsis and human sepsis. J Leukoc Biol 2007, 81: 137–143.PubMed
            103. Turnidge JD: The pharmacodynamics of beta-lactams. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 27: 10–22. 10.1086/514622PubMed

            Copyright

            © Abdul-Aziz et al.; licensee Springer. 2012

            This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.