Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Doripenem in Critically Ill Trauma Patients with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Doripenem is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections. While studies have described the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of doripenem in the critically ill, no study has described the probability of target attainment profile among trauma patients with sepsis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a prospective, open-label, pharmacokinetic study in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) at Grady Health System. Thirty trauma patients with sepsis admitted to the SICU received doripenem 1 g infused over 4 hours every 8 hours for three doses. Blood samples were taken just before and after the third dose. A two-compartment model was fit to the data using non-parametric population PK modeling software. Embedded with the final PK model, a Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) was performed to determine the PK/PD profile of doripenem 1 g, infused over 4 hours, every 8 hours after administration of the first and fourth doses. RESULTS: Overall, the model fit the data well, and mean (standard deviation) clearance and volume of the central compartment were 16.9 (11.4) L/h and 28.5 (16.0) L, respectively. In the MCS analyses, doripenem 1 g, infused over 4 hours, administered every 8 hours, conferred >90% probabilities of achieving 30-50% time greater than the minimum inhibitory concentration (30-50% T>MIC) for MICs ≤2 mg/L after infusion of both the first and fourth doses. The MCS indicated that more intensive doripenem dosing schemes should be considered for organisms with MIC values in excess of 2 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the doripenem PK/PD in critically ill patients with trauma. Among these patients, the MCS analyses suggest that current dosing strategies may be ineffective when the MIC value for the infecting pathogen is expected to be above 2 mg/L.

A review of current agents for anticoagulation for the critical care practitioner.

There has been a tremendous boom in the arena of anticoagulant therapy recently. Although the indications for these agents reside in the noncritical care environment, over time, the impact of these agents have infiltrated the critical care environment particularly due to devastating complications with associated use. With so many newer agents on the market or coming down the pipeline, it is easy to become overwhelmed. It is important that the critical care practitioner does not ignore these agents but becomes familiar with them to better prepare for the management of patients on one or more anticoagulant agents in the intensive care unit. To equip the critical care practitioners with the knowledge about commonly used anticoagulants, we provide an extensive review of the pharmacology, indications, and adverse effects related to these agents as well as suggestions on preventing or managing complications.

A comparison of direct thrombin inhibitors in the treatment of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia: a single institution experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT), if left untreated, can lead to thrombocytopenia, thromboembolic complications and even death. Two thrombin inhibitors, lepirudin and argatroban, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to historical controls in the management of HIT. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the effects of lepirudin and argatroban in the management of HIT. METHODS: Adult subjects with a positive anti-heparin platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibody test and >50% decrease in platelet count during the first 30 days of admission over a period of 2 years were included in the study. Patient demographics, platelet counts, choice of antithrombin therapy, occurrence of thrombosis, length of hospital stay, and date and cause of death, if applicable, were collected for each patient. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients met inclusion criteria: 41 patients did not receive any thrombin inhibitors after the diagnosis of HIT, 24 patients received lepirudin and 17 patients received argatroban. Subjects treated with a thrombin inhibitor were more likely to experience platelet count recovery (87.5% for the lepirudin group and 82.4% for the argatroban group) compared to those who did not receive antithrombin therapy (51.2%) after the diagnosis of HIT was made (P < 0.001). The thrombosis rate for subjects who did not receive antithrombin therapy after the diagnosis of HIT was 26.8%, compared to 8.3% for the lepirudin group and 5.9% for the argatroban group (P < 0.01). The incidence of death was also higher in the group of subjects that did not receive antithrombin therapy (48.8%) compared with the lepirudin group (16.7%) or the argatroban group (23.5%), P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that thrombin inhibitors can improve the outcomes of patients with HIT by decreasing the incidence of morbidity and mortality relating to HIT. No significant difference could be determined in outcomes between argatroban and lepirudin therapy.