Search

Caro Editor, Esta carta visa complementar os dados publicados por Silva et al., ( ) apresentando os resultados das concentracoes plasmaticas de pacientes que utilizaram piperacilina (PIP) em dose empirica (DE) ou dose ajustada (DA) pelo software Optimum Dosing Strategies (ID-ODS), alem de expor alguns pontos limitadores observados pelos autores durante a utilizacao do software na realidade de um hospital brasileiro. […] Software para ajuste de doses de antimicrobianos. Implicacoes nas concentracoes plasmaticas e limitacoes praticas

Background Torsades de pointes is a life-threatening ventricular tachycardia associated with prolongation of the QT interval. Many diseases and medications have been implicated as potentially prolonging the QT interval, but little data exists regarding the means of quantifying this risk. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of commonly used antimicrobials on the QT interval in hospitalized patients. Methods Demographic, diseases, laboratory, medication administration history and ECG recording data were collected from the electronic records of adult patients admitted, from July 2018 to December 2018, to two urban hospitals. A model for the QT interval comprised of four sub-models: gender, heart rate, circadian rhythm, and the drug and disease effects. Fixed and random effects with between occasion variability were estimated for the parameters. A Bayesian approach using the NUTS in STAN was used via the brms package in the R® software. Results Data from 1,353 patients were used with baseline characteristics shown in Table 1. Observed vs. predicted plots based on the training (Figure 1A) and validation data set (Figure 1B) showed a great fit. The parameters for QTc0, α, gender, and circadian rhythm were accurately identified (Table 2). Similarly, the model correctly described the expected impact of acute or chronic diseases on the QT interval. Uncertainty interval estimates (Figure 2) show that patients treated with fluconazole and levofloxacin are likely to present with a QT interval [mean (95% CI) of 6.84 (0.22,21.45) and 5.05 (0.15, 16.70), respectively], that is > 5 ms longer vs. no treatment, the minimum cutoff that should evoke further risk assessment of QT interval prolongation. Conclusion The model developed correctly describes the impact baseline risk factors have on the QT interval. Point estimates of QT interval prolongation show that patients treated with fluconazole and levofloxacin may be at considerable risk; while those treated with azithromycin or ciprofloxacin are more likely to be at an insignificant risk for QT interval prolongation during hospital admission. Further workup to quantify the impact of concomitant treatment with these and other at-risk medications is underway. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Population pharmacokinetic analyses can be applied to predict optimized dosages for individual patients. The aim of this study was to compare the prediction performance of the published population pharmacokinetic models for meropenem in critically ill patients. We coded the published population pharmacokinetic models with covariate relationships into dosing software to predict unbound meropenem concentrations measured in a separate cohort of critically ill patients. The agreements between the observed and predicted concentrations were evaluated with Bland-Altman plots. The absolute and relative bias and precision of the models were determined. The clinical implications of the results were evaluated according to whether dose adjustments were required from the predictions to achieve a meropenem concentration of >2 mg/liter throughout the dosing interval. A total of 157 free meropenem concentrations from 56 patients were analyzed. Eight published population pharmacokinetic models were compared. The models showed an absolute bias in predicting the unbound meropenem concentrations from a mean percent difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of −108.5% (−119.9% to −97.3%) to 19.9% (7.3% to 32.7%), while absolute precision ranged from −249.1% (−263.4% to −234.8%) to 31.9% (17.6% to 46.2%) and −178.9% (−196.9% to −160.9%) to 175.0% (157.0% to 193.0%). A dose change was required in 44% to 64% of the concentration results. Seven of the eight equations evaluated underpredicted free meropenem concentrations. In conclusion, the overall accuracy of these models supports their inclusion in dosing software and application for individualizing meropenem doses in critically ill patients to increase the likelihood of achievement of optimal antibiotic exposures.