Search

Background Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving modality but has the potential to alter the pharmacokinetics (PK) of antimicrobials. Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an antibiotic with utility in treating certain multi-drug resistant Gram-negative infections. Herein, we describe the population pharmacokinetics of imipenem and relebactam in critically ill patients supported on ECMO. Methods Patients with infection supported on ECMO received 4–6 doses of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam per current prescribing information based on estimated creatinine clearance. Blood samples were collected following the final dose of the antibiotic. Concentrations were determined via LC–MS/MS. Population PK models were fit with and without covariates using Pmetrics. Monte Carlo simulations of 1000 patients assessed joint PTA of f AUC0–24/MIC ≥ 8 for relebactam, and ≥40% f T > MIC for imipenem for each approved dosing regimen. Results Seven patients supported on ECMO were included in PK analyses. A two-compartment model with creatinine clearance as a covariate on clearance for both imipenem and relebactam fitted the data best. The mean ± standard deviation parameters were: CL0, 15.21 ± 6.52 L/h; Vc, 10.13 ± 2.26 L; K12, 2.45 ± 1.16 h−1 and K21, 1.76 ± 0.49 h−1 for imipenem, and 6.95 ± 1.34 L/h, 9.81 ± 2.69 L, 2.43 ± 1.13 h−1 and 1.52 ± 0.67 h−1 for relebactam. Simulating each approved dose of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam according to creatinine clearance yielded PTAs of ≥90% up to an MIC of 2 mg/L. Conclusions Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam dosed according to package insert in patients supported on ECMO is predicted to achieve exposures sufficient to treat susceptible Gram-negative isolates, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two out of the three recently approved β-lactam (BL)/β-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) have higher CLSI susceptibility breakpoints (ceftazidime/avibactam 8 mg/L; meropenem/vaborbactam 4 mg/L) compared with the BL alone (ceftazidime 4 mg/L; meropenem 1 mg/L). This can lead to a therapeutic grey area on susceptibility reports depending on resistance mechanism. For instance, a meropenem-resistant OXA-48 isolate (MIC 4 mg/L) may appear as meropenem/vaborbactam-susceptible (MIC 4 mg/L) despite vaborbactam's lack of OXA-48 inhibitory activity.Methods: OXA-48-positive (n = 51) and OXA-48-negative (KPC, n = 5; Klebsiella pneumoniae WT, n = 1) Enterobacterales were utilized. Susceptibility tests (broth microdilution) were conducted with ceftazidime/avibactam, imipenem/relebactam and meropenem/vaborbactam, as well as their respective BL partner. Antimicrobial activity of all six agents was evaluated in the murine neutropenic thigh model using clinically relevant exposures. Efficacy was assessed as the change in bacterial growth at 24 h, compared with 0 h controls.Results: On average, the three BL/BLI agents resulted in robust bacteria killing among OXA-48-negative isolates. Among OXA-48-positive isolates, poor in vivo activity with imipenem/relebactam was concordant with its resistant phenotypic profile. Variable meropenem/vaborbactam activity was observed among isolates with a 'susceptible' MIC of 4 mg/L. Only 30% (7/23) of isolates at meropenem/vaborbactam MICs of 2 and 4 mg/L met the ≥1 log bacterial reduction threshold predictive of clinical efficacy in serious infections. In contrast, ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in marked bacterial density reduction across the range of MICs and 73% (37/51) of isolates exceeded the ≥1 log bacterial reduction threshold.Conclusions: Data demonstrate that current imipenem/relebactam and ceftazidime/avibactam CLSI breakpoints are appropriate. Data also suggest that higher meropenem/vaborbactam breakpoints relative to meropenem can translate to potentially poor clinical outcomes in patients infected with OXA-48-harbouring isolates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]