Individualized dosing of vancomycin in geriatric patients

Česká verze

Authors: H. Suchánková ^1,2; K. Lečbychová ³; J. Strojil ¹; T. Fürst ⁴
Authors place of work: Ústav farmakologie, Lékařská fakulta Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci ¹; II. interní klinika – gastroenterologická a geriatrická FN Olomouc ²; Klinika anesteziologie, resuscitace a intenzivní medicíny, Fakultní menocnice Ostrava ³; Katedra matemetické analýzy a aplikací matematiky, Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci ⁴
Published in the journal: Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 69, 2020, č. 4, s. 172-180
Category: Původní práce

Summary

Aims: Pharmacotherapy in geriatric patients is challenging due to frequent multimorbidity, polypharmacy, increased risk of adverse drug effects, and altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics associated with aging. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a dosing individualisation strategy that helps to minimise toxicity whilst maximising the efficacy of the agent. Routine TDM of vancomycin is recommended in clinical practice in order to optimise drug exposure. Guidelines by Rybak et al. from 2009 on vancomycin TDM promote monitoring of trough concentrations only, with higher target ranges for dosage adjustment.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the practice of vancomycin TDM in geriatric (aged ≥ 65 ys) and non-geriatric patients, compare two methods of dosing adjustment (trough-based vs. AUC-based approach), and finally determine covariates enabling to choose an appropriate initial vancomycin maintenance dosing regimen in geriatric patients.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of all vancomycin plasma concentrations determined during a five year period in patients treated with IV vancomycin in the University Hospital Olomouc was performed. Haemodialysis patients were excluded. Each trough value was compared with the guidelines by Rybak et al. and subsequently, pharmacokinetic modelling was performed to assess individual AUC₂₄ values.

Results: A total of 1,458 vancomycin concentrations were included, which represented 799 individual monitoring events in 380 patients. Vancomycin was most commonly prescribed for sepsis (41.6% of all patients). Pathogens with MIC > 1 mg/L were responsible for 16.7% of all infections. Initial dosing led to optimum vancomycin exposure in 37.8% of patients.

Vancomycin dosage based on the guidelines by Rybak et al. from 2009 would agree with the AUC-based dosing adjustments in 65% of all monitoring events. Approximately 19.1% of trough concentrations were below the minimum target suggested by the guidelines despite the fact that their corresponding AUC₂₄/MIC ratios were high enough (≥ 400), and in further 6.1% of monitoring events, the trough-only approach would fail to accurately identify supratherapeutic concentrations.

Initial dosing of 1 g twice daily was prescribed to 62.9% of patients, although it would be considered as optimal only in 32.1% of all patients. For 48 % of patients in the non-geriatric cohort, higher dosing (3 to 4 g daily) would be necessary to achieve optimum vancomycin exposure, whereas for 56% of geriatric patients, lower dosage regimens (up to 1.5 g daily) would be considered optimal. The estimated glomerular filtration rate was the most significant covariate in the pharmacokinetic model enabling the construction of a dosing nomogram.

Conclusion: AUC-based vancomycin monitoring is superior to trough-based approach as the latter can lead to unnecessarily aggressive dosing in over a quarter of patients. A simple nomogram using the estimated glomerular filtration rate may increase the percentage of patients receiving an optimal initial vancomycin dose.

Keywords:

Vancomycin – pharmacokinetics – pharmacodynamics – modelling – Therapeutic drug monitoring – concentration – elderly

Zdroje

1. Barber KE, Bell AM, Stover KR, et al. Intravenous Vancomycin Dosing in the Elderly: A Focus on Clinical Issues and Practical Application. Drugs Aging, 2016;33(12):845–854.

2. Solis-Hernandez P, Vidales-Reyes M, arza-Gonzalez E, et al. Hospital-Acquired Infections in Elderly Versus Younger Patients in an Acute Care Hospital. Int J Infect, 2016;3(1):e32620.

3. Eliasson E, Lindh JD, Malmström RE, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring for tomorrow. Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 2013;69(Suppl 1):25–32.

4. Ye Z-K, Tang H-L, Zhai S-D. Benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 2013;8(10):e77169.

5. Tabah A, De Waele J, Lipman J, et al. The ADMIN-ICU survey: a survey on antimicrobial dosing and monitoring in ICUs. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2015;70(9):2671–2677.

6. Moise-Broder PA, Forrest A, Birmingham MC, et al. Pharma-codynamics of vancomycin and other antimicrobials in patients with Staphylococcus aureus lower respiratory tract infections. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2004;43(13):925–942.

7. Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health-Syst Pharm AJHP Off J Am Soc Health-Syst Pharm, 2009;66(1):82–98.

8. Neely MN, Kato L, Youn G, et al. Prospective Trial on the Use of Trough Concentration versus Area under the Curve To Determine Therapeutic Vancomycin Dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2018;62(2): e02042–17.

9. Mizokami F, Shibasaki M, Yoshizue Y, et al. Pharmacodynamics of vancomycin in elderly patients aged 75 years or older with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus hospital-acquired pneumonia. Clin Interv Aging, 2013;8:1015–1021.

10. Pai MP, Neely M, Rodvold KA, et al. Innovative approaches to opti-mizing the delivery of vancomycin in individual patients. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 2014;77:50–57.

11. Neely MN, Youn G, Jones B, et al. Are Vancomycin Trough Concentrations Adequate for Optimal Dosing? Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2014;58(1):309–316.

12. Videcnik ZJ, Lusa L, Strle F, et al. Bacterial infection in elderly nursing home and community-based patients: a prospective cohort study. Infection, 2013;41(5):909–916.

13. Mouton C, Bazaldua O, Pierce B, et al. Common infections in older adults. Am Fam Physician, 2001;63(2):257–268.

14. Cardile AP, Tan C, Lustik MB, et al. Optimization of time to initial vancomycin target trough improves clinical outcomes. SpringerPlus, 2015;4:364.

15. Bel Kamel A, Bourguignon L, Marcos M, et al. Is Trough Con-centration of Vancomycin Predictive of the Area Under the Curve? A Clinical Study in Elderly Patients. Ther Drug Monit, 2017;39(1):83–87.

16. Abulfathi AA, Chirehwa M, Rosenkranz B, et al. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dose Individualization to Achieve Therapeutic Vancomycin Concentrations. J Clin Pharmacol, 2018;58(9):1134–1139.

17. Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: A revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health-Syst Pharm AJHP Off J Am Soc Health-Syst Pharm, 2020;77(11):835–864.

18. Fukumori S, Tsuji Y, Mizoguchi A, et al. Association of the clinical efficacy of vancomycin with the novel pharmacokinetic parameter area under the trough level (AUTL) in elderly patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2016;41(4):399–402.

19. Zahálková J, Strojil J, Petejová N, et al. Dávkování vankomycinu při kontinuální náhradě funkce ledvin. Klin Farmakol Farm, 2011;25(3):116–120.

20. Sera LC, McPherson ML. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic changes associated with aging and implications for drug therapy. Clin Geriatr Med, 2012;28(2):273–286.

21. Mizuno T, Mizokami F, Fukami K, et al. The influence of severe hypo-albuminemia on the half-life of vancomycin in elderly patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus hospital-acquired pneumonia. Clin Interv Aging, 2013;1323–1328.

22. Šálek T. Odhadovaná glomerulární filtrace dospělých pacientů. Klin Farmakol Farm, 2015;29(4):153–155.