Novel population pharmacokinetic model for Linezolid in critically Ill patients and evaluation of the adequacy of the current dosing recommendation

Antimicrobial treatment in critically ill patients remains challenging. The aim of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model for linezolid in critically ill patients and to evaluate the adequacy of current dosing recommendation (600 mg/12 h). Forty inpatients were included, 23 of whom were subjected to continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT). Blood and effluent samples were drawn after linezolid administration at defined time points, and linezolid levels were measured. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed, using NONMEM 7.3. The percentage of patients that achieved the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets was calculated (AUC24/MIC > 80 and 100% T>MIC). A two-compartment model best described the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. Elimination was conditioned by the creatinine clearance and by the extra-corporeal clearance if the patient was subjected to CRRT. For most patients, the standard dose of linezolid did not cover infections caused by pathogens with MIC ≥ 2 mg/L. Continuous infusion may be an alternative, especially when renal function is preserved

Novel population pharmacokinetic model for Linezolid in critically Ill patients and evaluation of the adequacy of the current dosing recommendation

Antimicrobial treatment in critically ill patients remains challenging. The aim of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model for linezolid in critically ill patients and to evaluate the adequacy of current dosing recommendation (600 mg/12 h). Forty inpatients were included, 23 of whom were subjected to continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT). Blood and effluent samples were drawn after linezolid administration at defined time points, and linezolid levels were measured. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed, using NONMEM 7.3. The percentage of patients that achieved the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets was calculated (AUC24/MIC > 80 and 100% T>MIC). A two-compartment model best described the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. Elimination was conditioned by the creatinine clearance and by the extra-corporeal clearance if the patient was subjected to CRRT. For most patients, the standard dose of linezolid did not cover infections caused by pathogens with MIC ≥ 2 mg/L. Continuous infusion may be an alternative, especially when renal function is preserved

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc