Upload
yampold-estheben-chusi
View
230
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
xsfdfdfdsf
Citation preview
Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
Use of antibacterial agents in renal failure
Lawrence L. Livornese Jr, MDa,b,*,Dorothy Slavin, MDb,c, Brett Gilbert, DOb,Paul Robbins, DOd, Jerome Santoro, MDc,e
aDepartment of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, 2900 W. Queen Lane,
Philadelphia, PA 19129, USAbDivision of Infectious Diseases, Lankenau Hospital, Lankenau Medical Building,
Suite 164, Wynnewood, PA 19096, USAcDepartment of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine,
111 South 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USAdDivision of Nephrology, Lankenau Hospital, Lankenau Medical Building,
Suite 130, Wynnewood, PA 19096, USAeDepartment of Medicine, Main Line Health System, Lankenau Hospital,
Wynnewood, PA 19096, USA
The kidney is the major organ for maintaining fluid and electrolytehomeostasis. Changes in renal function, whether associated with normalaging or disease, can have profound effects on the pharmacology ofantibacterial agents. It is imperative that clinicians have a basic un-derstanding of these consequences to prescribe antibacterial agents effec-tively in the face of impaired or changing renal function.
This article reviews the pharmacokinetics of antibacterial agents inpatients with normal and decreased renal function. The concepts of volumeof distribution, rate of elimination, loading and maintenance doses, andtherapeutic drug monitoring are delineated. Comment is made about theintermittent dosing of cefazolin with high-flux hemodialysis. The use of oncedaily aminoglycoside administration is reviewed. Newer and traditionalmethods of extracorporeal circulation and the resultant changes in anti-bacterial agent pharmacokinetics are discussed.
* Corresponding author. Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of
Medicine, 2900 W. Queen Lane, Philadelphia, PA 19129, USA.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Livornese).
0891-5520/04/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.idc.2004.04.013
552 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
Pharmacokinetics
Bioavailability and metabolism
Bioavailability refers to the degree that a drug is absorbed into the systemiccirculation after extravascular administration. Relatively few studies haveaddressed this issue in patients with renal failure. In chronic renal failurenumerous factors, such as nausea, vomiting, diabetic gastroparesis, andintestinal edema,may decrease gastrointestinal absorption. The conversion ofurea to ammonia by gastric urease, antacids, or the use of alkalating agents,such as bicarbonate and citrate, increases gastric pH thereby reducing levels ofdrugs that require an acidicmilieu for absorption [1]. Somedrugs are boundbyantacids and phosphate binders, which are commonly used in renal failure [2].In chronic renal failure, bioavailability is further reduced because of decreasedsmall bowel absorption [3]. First-pass hepatic metabolism may also bediminished in uremia leading to increased serum levels of oral antibacterialagents. Impaired plasma protein binding increases the level of free drug; thispermits more drug to bind to the site of action and conversely increases theamount of drug available for elimination bydialysis or hepaticmetabolism.Ofnote, the rates of glucuronidation, sulfated conjugation, and oxidation aregenerally unchanged in the presence of uremia [4].
Distribution and elimination
Plasma levels for a given drug are a function of the dose, bioavailability,volume of distribution (Vd), and rate of metabolism and excretion. The Vd iscalculated by dividing the amount of drug in the body by the plasmaconcentration. In general, drugs that are highly protein bound are foundmainly in the vascular space and have a small Vd. Those agents that are highlylipid soluble have a large Vd because they are able to penetrate body tissuesmore easily. Vd can exceed the total volume of body water because Vd isa mathematical calculation that does not necessarily correspond to a distinctphysiologic space (this is why the term ‘‘apparent Vd’’ is often used). Vd isimportant in calculating the plasma half-life (T1/2) of a drug.
The major routes of elimination of antibacterial agents and theirmetabolites are by the kidney and the liver. Small, generally inconsequential,amounts are lost in sweat, saliva, expired air, and breast milk. The rate ofelimination of most antibacterial agents follows first-order kinetics (ie, therate of elimination is proportional to the amount of drug in the body, and asthe amount of drug increases so does the rate of elimination).
There is an elimination constant K, such that rate of elimination = K �amount of drug in body. Because the amount of drug in the body can becalculated by multiplying the plasma concentration by the Vd one canrestate the equation as rate of elimination = K � Vd � plasma concentra-tion. Plasma drug clearance is calculated by dividing the rate of eliminationby the plasma concentration: plasma drug clearance = K � Vd.
553L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
It is traditional that the rate of plasma clearance is expressed as the timerequired for the concentration of a drug to decline by 50% (T1/2). T1/2
remains constant at all times for all drugs that follow first-order kineticsbecause as the concentration decreases so does the rate of plasma clearance.Additionally, T1/2 is independent of the initial plasma concentration; it ispurely a function of K, the aforementioned elimination constant. Therefore,T1/2 = ln2/K = 0.693/K. By substituting for K from plasma drug clear-ance = K � Vd: T1/2 = (0.693)(Vd)/plasma drug clearance. The T1/2 isdetermined by only the Vd and the plasma clearance. Any process that altersthese changes the T1/2. In renal insufficiency, edema or ascites increase theVd of highly protein bound or water-soluble drugs resulting in lower thanexpected plasma levels. Muscle loss and dehydration can decrease Vd andlead to higher than expected concentrations of these same agents.
Creatinine clearance
The rate of elimination of drugs by the kidney depends on the glomerularfiltration rate (GFR), which is a function of the cardiac output. The proximaltubules have energy-dependent transport systems, which may secrete andreabsorb drugs. b-Lactams are actively secreted by this system. A 24-hoururine collection allows accurate determination of the endogenous creatinineclearance, which is a close approximation to the GFR (a small amount ofcreatinine is secreted in the proximal tubules). In practice, it is often too timeconsuming or impractical to obtain a 24-hour urine collection to determinethe GFR. The equation of Cockroft and Gault [5] can be used to estimatecreatinine clearance: Creatinine clearance in males = {(140-age) � totalbody weight in kg}/(72 � serum creatinine). In females the clearance is 85%of this value.
Pesola et al [6] suggest using ideal body weight instead of total bodyweight. Ideal body weight can be calculated using height and gender perDevine [7]: male ideal body weight = 50 kg þ 2.3 kg for each inch over 5 ft;female ideal body weight = 45.5 kg þ 2.3 kg for each inch over 5 ft. Thesecalculations are only valid when the renal function is stable and the serumcreatinine is constant. When the patient is oliguric or the serum creatinineis rapidly rising, the creatinine clearance should be assumed to be less than10 mL/min.
Serum creatinine alone is not a reliable measure of creatinine clearancebecause it is a function of the GFR and muscle mass. In the elderly ordebilitated patient the serum creatinine may seem normal even in thepresence of significant renal insufficiency. Trimethoprim and cimetidinecompete with creatinine for secretory pathways in the proximal tubule andmay cause an increase in serum creatinine without a change in the GFR[8,9]. A false elevation in serum creatinine has been reported with cefoxitin,cephalothin, and 5-flucytosine because of interference with certain creatinineassays [10,11].
554 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
Dosing of antibacterial agents in renal failure
Initial dose
The loading or initial dose is based on extracellular fluid volume and is notaltered in the presence of decreased renal function. The presence of ascites oredema may necessitate a larger dose, whereas dehydration may requirea reduction in dosage. When a loading dose is not used, four maintenancedoses are required to achieve a steady state. When antibacterial agents witha short T1/2 are used each maintenance dose acts as if it is a loading dose, andno separate initial dose is used. A loading dose is generally used when it isnecessary to achieve therapeutic plasma levels rapidly.
Maintenance dose
After the loading dose, subsequent maintenance doses frequently requiremodification in patients with decreased renal function. Table 1 outlinesspecific dosing guidelines for the use of antibiotics in patients with normaland diminished renal function. The classification is based on chemical classand then subdivided alphabetically.
The second through fifth columns indicate the percentage of drugexcreted unchanged, the T1/2 of each agent in normals and end-stage renaldisease, the percent protein binding, and volume of distribution, respec-tively. The later columns recommend dosing schedules based on renalfunction. Modifications of doses are dictated by the severity of renalimpairment as determined by the estimated GFR. Adjustments are labeledeither ‘‘D’’ for dose reduction or ‘‘I’’ for interval extension. In the dosereduction method (D), a percentage of the usual dose of antibacterial isgiven at the standard interval. In the interval extension method (I), the doseof the individual antibacterial agent remains constant, but the intervalbetween doses is extended. Additional dosing requirements for variousdialysis modalities, if available, are found in the last column. If informa-tion is available, supplementation for hemodialysis, continuous ambula-tory peritoneal dialysis, and continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration isindicated.
Once-daily aminoglycosides
In the era of antibiotic resistance, aminoglycoside antibiotics continue toplay a critical role in the treatment of certain gram-negative bacterialinfections. Because of their high side effect profile and their prolongedpostantibiotic effect, novel treatment approaches and dosing schedules havebeen implemented to limit toxicity [12,13]. In the last 10 years once-dailyaminoglycoside therapy has been introduced to take advantage of amino-glycoside pharmacodynamics, while attempting to reduce nephrotoxicityand ototoxicity [14]. Credence for this concept is supported by early animalstudies, which suggested that the incidence of acute renal failure could be
555L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
reduced by once-daily administration [15]. A meta-analysis performed byHatala et al [16] reviewed 13 studies and the authors concluded thatstandard and once-daily regimens had similar bacteriologic cure and thatonce-daily dosing showed a trend toward reduced toxicity and mortality.Other benefits of once-daily dosing include reduced costs and prolongedpostantibiotic effect.
Patient selection is important when considering a once-daily regimen.Only certain patient populations are appropriate for once-daily dosing;these include patients with pelvic inflammatory disease, gram-negativebacteremia, urinary tract infections, febrile neutropenia, gynecologic in-fections, and respiratory infections [17]. Once-daily aminoglycoside dosingshould not be used where little apparent benefit is expected, or where clinicalevidence is lacking. The following clinical scenarios preclude once-dailyaminoglycoside use: pregnancy, creatinine clearance less then 20 mL/min,bone and joint infections, central nervous system infections, infective endo-carditis, obesity, burns, and solid organ transplantation.
Initial dosing for once-daily aminoglycosides should be based oncreatinine clearance. Table 2 provides dosage adjustments in patients withrenal insufficiency. Serum drug levels with once-daily dosing of gentamicinor tobramycin should achieve a peak concentration of 15 to 20 lg/mL. Thetrough concentration should be less than 1 lg/mL [18,19].
Intermittent dosing cefazolin with hemodialysis
In hemodialysis patients with suspected bloodstream or vascular infec-tions, vancomycin and gentamicin are frequently given as empiric therapy.Often when an isolate is recovered, such as methicillin-susceptible Staphy-lococcus aureus, vancomycin is continued because doses may be given withhemodialysis and there is no need for additional intravenous access;however, the emergence of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and concernsfor increasing resistance of S aureus to glycopeptides has led to recom-mendations to limit the use of vancomycin when possible [20].
Sowinski et al [21] studied the pharmacokinetics and clearance ofcefazolin in 25 uninfected subjects undergoing thrice-weekly hemodialysis.Fifteen subjects underwent hemodialysis with high-efficiency hemodialyzers,and 10 with high-flux hemodialyzers. Subjects were given an intravenousdose of 15 mg/kg cefazolin immediately after hemodialysis; both groupsmaintained cefazolin levels above the breakpoint for sensitive organisms(8 lg/mL), even with a 3-day interdialytic period.
In a previous study, Fogel et al [22] concluded that for anurichemodialysis patients, cefazolin can be used effectively at a dose of 1 gintravenously after each hemodialysis session. A number of nonanuricsubjects were included in the study by Sowinski et al [21]. A total of10 subjects produced enough urine to calculate cefazolin renal clear-ance, although only three could be considered nonoliguric (urine output
Table 1
Rec
or renal function
in
Dru 10–50 \10 Supplement for dialysis
Am
A 30%–70%
q 12–18 h
20%–30%
q 24–48 h
Hemo 2/3 normal dose
after dialysis
CAPD 15–20 mg/L
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50 and
measure levels
G 30%–70%
q 12 h
20%–30%
q 24–48 h
Hemo 2/3 normal dose
after dialysis
CAPD 3–4 mg/L
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50 and
measure levels
N 20%–60%
q 12 h
10%–20%
q 24–48 h
Hemo 2/3 normal dose
after dialysis
CAPD 3–4 mg/L
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50 and
measure levels
S q 24–72 h q 72–96 h Hemo 1/2 normal dose
after dialysis
CAPD 20–40 mg/L
556
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
ommended drug dosages and adjustments for patients in renal failure
Adjustment f
GFR, mL/m
g
Excreted
unchanged
%
Half-life
(normal/
ESRD)
hours
Plasma
protein
binding %
Volume
of
distribution
L/kg
Dose for
normal
renal
function Method >50
inoglycoside antibiotics
mikacin 95 1.4–2.3/
17–150
\5 0.22–0.29 5 mg/kg
q 8 h
D and I 60%–90%
q 12 h
entamicin 95 1.8/20–60 \5 0.23–0.26 1–1.7 mg/kg
q 8 h
D and I 60%–90%
q 8–12 h
etilmicin 95 1–3/35–72 \5 0.19–0.23 5 mg/kg
q 8 h
D and I 50%–90%
q 8–12 h
treptomycin 70 2.5/100 35 0.26 1 g/d I q 24 h
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50 and
measure levels
T
h
30%–70%
q 12 h
20%–30%
q 24–48 h
Hemo 2/3 normal dose
after dialysis
CAPD 3–4 mg/L
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50 and
measure levels
Cep
C 50%–100% 50% Hemo 250 mg after
dialysis
CAPD 250 mg q 8–12 h
CAVH Not applicable
C q 12–24 h q 24–48 h Hemo 0.5–1 g after
dialysis
CAPD 0.5 g/d
CAVH Not applicable
C q 12 h q 24–48 h Hemo 0.5–1 g after
dialysisa
CAPD 0.5 g q 12 h
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
C q 12 h q 24 h Hemo 300 mg after
dialysis
CAPD Not applicable
CAVH Not applicable
C 50% 50% q 24 h Hemo No data
CAPD No data
CAVH No data
(continued on next page) 557
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
obramycin 95 2.5/27–60 \5 0.22–0.33 1–1.7 mg/kg
q 8 h
D and I 60%–90%
q 8–12
halosporin antibiotics
efaclor 70 1/3 25 0.24–0.35 250–500 mg
q 8 h
D 100%
efadroxil 70–90 1.4/22 20 0.31 0.5–1 g q 12 h I q 12 h
efazolin 75–95 2/40–70 80 0.13–0.22 0.5–2 g q 8 h I q 8 h
efdinir 18 1.7/16 60–70 0.35 300 mg q 12 h I q 12 h
efditoren 99 1.6/4.7 88 9.3 200–400 mg
q 12 h
D and I 100%
Table
stment for renal function
, mL/min
Drug 10–50 \10 Supplement for dialysis
Ce h q 16–24 h q 24–48 h Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Not
recommended
Ce 75% 50% Hemo 300 mg after
dialysis
CAPD 200 mg/d
CAVH Not applicable
Ce 100% 100% Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD None
CAVH None
Ce q 8–12 h q 24 h Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD 1 g q 24 h
CAVH 1 g q 12 h
Ce 50% 25% Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD 1 g/d
CAVH 750 mg q 12 h
Ce q 8–12 h q 24–48 h Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD 1 g/d
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
558
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
1 (continued )
Adju
GFR
Excreted
unchanged
%
Half-life
(normal/
ESRD)
hours
Plasma
protein
binding %
Volume
of
distribution
L/kg
Dose for
normal
renal
function Method >50
fepime 85 2.2/18 16 0.3 0.25–2 g q 8 h I q 12
fixime 18–50 3.1/12 50 0.6–1.1 200 mg q 12 h D 100%
foperazone 20 1.6–2.5/
2.9
90 0.14–0.20 2 g q 12 h 100%
fotaxime 60 1/15 37 0.15–0.5 1 g q 8 h I q 6 h
fotetan 75 3.5/13–25 85 0.15 1–2 g q 12 h D 100%
foxitin 80 1/13–23 41–75 0.2 1–2 g q 6–8 h I q 8 h
Cefpodoxime 30 2.5/26 26 0.6–1.2 200 mg q 12 h I q 12 h q 16 h q 24–48 h Hemo 200 mg after
dialysis only
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Not applicable
250 m
q 12–16 h
250 mg q 24 Hemo 250 mg after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
\10
q 24–48 h q 48 h Hemo 1 g after
dialysis
CAPD 0.5 g q 24 h
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
50% 25% Hemo 400 mg after
dialysis
CAPD Not applicable
CAVH Not applicable
q 12–24 h q 24 h Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD 0.5–1 g q 24 h
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD 750 mg q 12 h
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
100% 100% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
(continued on next page) 559
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
Cefprozil 65 1.7/6 40 0.65 500 mg q 12 h D and I 250 mg
q 12 h
Ceftazidime 60–85 1.2/13–25 17 0.28–0.4 1–2 g q 8 h I q 8–12 h
Ceftibuten 56 2/22 65 0.21 400 mg q 24 h D 100%
Ceftizoxime 57–100 1.4/35 28–50 0.26–0.42 1–2 g
q 8–12 h
I q 8–12 h
Ceftriaxone 30–65 7–9/12–24 90 0.12–0.18 1–2 g
q 12–24 h
100%
Cefuroxime-axetil 90 1.2/17 35–50 0.13–1.8 250–500 mg
q 12 h
100%
Table 1 (continued )
nt for renal function
/min
Dru 0–50 \10 Supplement for dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Not applicable
C 8–12 h q 24 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH 1 g q 12 h
C 12 h q 12 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Not applicable
Ma
A 00% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
C 5% 50%–75% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD None
CAVH None
D 00% 100% Hemo None
560
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
Adjustme
GFR, mL
g
Excreted
unchanged
%
Half-life
(normal/
ESRD)
hours
Plasma
protein
binding %
Volume
of
distribution
L/kg
Dose for
normal
renal
function Method >50 1
efuroxime-sodium 90 1.2/17 33 0.13–1.8 0.75–1.5 g
q 8 h
I q 8 h q
ephalexin 98 0.7/16 20 0.35 250–500 mg
q 6 h
I q 8 h q
crolide antibiotics
zithromycin 6–12 10–60/? 10–50 18 250–500 mg
q 24 h
100% 1
larithromycin 15 2.3–6/22 70 2.4 500 mg q 12 h D 100% 7
irithromycin 2 8/8 13–50 0.8 500 mg q 24 100% 1
CAPD None
CAVH None
E 100% 100% 50%–75% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
Mis
A 100% 50%–75% 25% Hemo 0.5 g after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
C 100% 100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
C 100% 50% Avoid Hemo Avoid
CAPD Avoid
CAVH Avoid
C 100% 100% 50%–75% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
C 100% 100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
(continued on next page)
561
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
rythromycin 15 1.4/5.6 60–95 0.78 250–500 mg
q 6–12 h
D
cellaneous antibacterials
ztreonam 75 1.7–2.9/
6–8
55 0.1–2 1–2 g
q 8–12 h
D
hloramphenicol 10 1.6–3.3/
3–7
45–60 0.5–1 12.5 mg/kg
q 6 h
ilastin 60 1/12 44 0.22 with
imipenem
D
lavulanic acid 40 1/3–4 30 0.3 100 mg
q 4–6 h
D
lindamycin 10 2–4/3–5 60–95 0.6–1.2 150–900 mg
q 6–8 h
Tab
t for renal function
/min
Dru 10–50 \10 Supplement for dialysis
D q 24 h q 48 h Hemo Give after HD
on HD days
CAPD 4 mg/kg q 48 h
CAVH 4 mg/kg q 48 h
I 50% 25% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
L 100% 100% Hemo No data
CAPD No data
CAVH No data
E 100% 50% Hemo 150 mg after
dialysis
CAPD No data
CAVH No data
M
h
250–500 mg
q 12 h
250–500
mg q 24 h
Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
562
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
le 1 (continued )
Adjustmen
GFR, mL
g
Excreted
unchanged
%
Half-life
(normal/
ESRD)
hours
Plasma
protein
binding %
Volume
of
distribution
L/kg
Dose for
normal
renal
function Method >50
aptomycin 78 9/28 92 0.1 4 mg/kg
q 24 h
I q 24 h
mipenem 20–70 1/4 13–21 0.17–0.3 0.25–1 g q 6 h D 100%
inezolid 30 4.5/? 31 40–50 400–600 mg
q 12 h
100%
rtapenem 38 4/6 85–95 8.2 1 g q 24 h D 100%
eropenem 65 1.1/6–8 Low 0.35 0.5–1 g q 6 h D and I 500
mg q 6
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
100% 75% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
avoid avoid Hemo Not applicable
CAPD Not applicable
CAVH Not applicable
q 12–24 h q 12–48 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD 0.75–1.5 g/d
CAVH 750 mg q 12 h
q 18 h q 24 h Hemo 1 g after dialysis
CAPD 1 g q 24
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
q 8–12 h q 12–24 h Hemo 2 g after dialysis
CAPD 3 g/d
CAVH Not applicable
100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
75% 50% Hemo 1/3 dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
(continued on next page) 563
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
Metronidazole 20 6–14/7–21 20 0.25–0.85 7.5 mg/kg
q 6–12 h
D 100%
Nitrofurantoin 30–40 0.5/1 20–60 0.3–0.7 50–100 mg
q 6 h
D 100%
Sulbactam 50–80 1/10–21 30 0.25–0.50 0.75–1.5 g
q 6–8 h
I q 6–8 h
Sulfamethoxazole 70 10/20–50 50 0.28–0.38 1 g q 8 h I q 12 h
Sulfisoxazole 70 3–7/6–12 85 0.14–0.28 1–2 g q 6 h I q 6 h
Synercid
(quinupristin/
dalfopristin)
15 0.9/? 55–78 1 7.5 mg/kg 100%
19 0.75/? 11–26 1 q 8–12 h
Tazobactam 65 1/17 22 0.21 1.5–2.25 g/d D 100%
Tab
renal function
Dru –50 \10 Supplement for dialysis
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
T 48 h q 72 h Hemo Dose for GFR
\10
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
T 18 h q 24 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD q 24 h
V 0 mg
q 24–48 h
500 mg
q 48–96 h
Hemo Dose for GFR
\10
CAPD Dose for GFR
\10
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
Pen
A 8–12 h q 24 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD 250 mg q 12 h
CAVH Not applicable
564
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
le 1 (continued )
Adjustment for
GFR, mL/min
g
Excreted
unchanged
%
Half-life
(normal/
ESRD)
hours
Plasma
protein
binding %
Volume
of
distribution
L/kg
Dose for
normal
renal
function Method >50 10
eicoplanin 40–60 33–190/
62–230
60–90 0.5–1.2 6 mg/kg
q 24 h
I q 24 h q
rimethoprim 40–70 9–13/
20–49
30–70 1–2.2 100–200 mg
q 12 h
I q 12 h q
ancomycin 90–100 6–8/
200–250
10–50 0.47–1.1 1 g q 12 h D and I 500 mg
q 6–12 h
50
icillins
moxicillin 50–70 0.9–23/
5–20
15–25 0.26 250–500
mg q 8 h
I q 8 h q
Ampicillin 30–90 0.8–1.5/ 20 0.17–0.31 250 mg–2 g I q 6 h q 6–12 h q 12–24 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD 250 mg q 12 h
CAVH Dose for GFR
10–50
100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH Not applicable
100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
75% 50% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for
GFR\10
CAVH Dose for
GFR 10–50
100% 100% Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for
GFR\10
CAVH Not applicable
q 6–8 h q 8 h Hemo Dose after
dialysis
CAPD Dose for
GFR\10
CAVH Dose for
GFR 10–50
1–2 g q 8 h 1–2 g q 12 h Hemo 3 g after dialysis
CAPD Dose for
GFR\10
(continued on next page)
565
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
7–20 q 6 h
Dicloxacillin 35–70 0.7/1–2 95 0.16 250–500
mg q 6 h
100%
Nafcillin 35 0.5/1.2 85 0.35 1–2 g q 4–6 h 100%
Penicillin G 60–85 0.5/6–20 50 0.3–0.42 0.5–4 million
U q 4 h
D 100%
Penicillin VK 60–90 0.6/4.1 50–80 0.5 250 mg q 6 h 100%
Piperacillin 75–90 0.8–1.5/
3.3–5
30 0.18–0.30 3–4 g q 4 h I q 4–6 h
Ticarcillin 85 1.2/11–16 45–60 0.14–0.21 3 g q 4 h D and I 1–2 g q 4 h
Table 1 (continued )
nt for renal function
/min
D 10–50 \10 Supplement for dialysis
CAVH Dose for
GFR 10–50
Q
50%–75% 50% Hemo 50% q 12 h
CAPD 50% q 8 h
CAVH 50% q 12 h
50% NA Hemo No data
CAPD No data
CAVH No data
100% 50% Hemo No data
CAPD No data
CAVH No data
500 mg
then
250 mg iv
q 24
500 mg
then
250 mg q
48 h
Hemo 500 mg then
250 mg q
48 h
CAPD 500 mg then
250 mg q
48 h
CAVH 500 mg then
250 mg q
24 h
566
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
Adjustme
GFR, mL
rug
Excreted
unchanged
%
Half-life
(normal/
ESRD)
hours
Plasma
protein
binding %
Volume
of
distribution
L/kg
Dose for
normal
renal
function Method >50
uinolone antibacterials
Ciprofloxacin 50–70 3–6/6–9 20–40 2.5 400 mg IV or
500–750 mg
po q 12 h
D 100%
Clinafloxacin 50–70 5/15 50 2.4 200 mg q 12 h D 100%
Gatifloxacin 82–88 7–8/? 20 2 400 mg q 24 h D 100%
Levofloxacin 87 6–8/35 30 74–112 500 mg iv 24 h D & I 500 mg
q 24 h
Moxifloxacin 96 12/ 40 2–3.5 400 mg q 24 h 100% 100% 100% Hemo No data
CAPD No data
CAVH No data
2 h q 12–24 h Avoid Hemo Not applicable
CAPD Not applicable
CAVH Not applicable
% 200
mg q 12 h
25%–50%
q 24 h
Hemo 100 mg q 12 h
CAPD Dose for
GFR\10
CAVH 300 mg q 24 h
% 100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
% 100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
% 100% 100% Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
–12 h q 12–24 h q 24 h Hemo None
CAPD None
CAVH None
enous hemofiltration; D, dose reduction; ESRD, end-stage
567
L.L.Livo
rnese
Jret
al/Infect
DisClin
NAm
18(2004)551–579
14.5–16.2
Norfloxacin 30 3.5–6.5/8 14 \0.5 400 mg q 12 h I q 1
Ofloxacin 68–80 5–8/28–37 25 1.5–2.5 400 mg q 12 h D 100
Trovafloxacin 50 10.5–12.2/? 76 1.3 100–300
mg q 24 h
100
Tetracycline antibacterials
Doxycycline 33–45 15–24/
18–25
80–93 0.75 100 mg q 12 h 100
Minocycline 6–10 12–16/
12–18
70 1–1.5 100 mg q 12 h 100
Tetracycline 48–60 6–10/
57–108
55–90 >0.7 250–500
mg qid
I q 8
Abbreviations: CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CAVH, continuous arteriov
renal disease; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; HD, hemodialysis; I, interval extension.a See text for additional dosing comments.
568 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
[ 400 mL/d). All 25 subjects in this study maintained adequate cefazolinlevels despite the production of variable amounts of urine.
Kuypers et al [23] used a fixed postdialysis dose of 2 g intravenouscefazolin in 15 uninfected hemodialysis patients, 14 of whom used high-fluxmembranes. The weight-based range of doses for this group was from 19.2to 37.7 mg/kg. Trough levels of cefazolin were obtained before subsequentdialysis sessions, and remained well above the minimal inhibitory concen-tration for susceptible organisms. A higher incidence of adverse effects wasseen in this study, however, raising the concern that the higher serum levelsof cefazolin achieved in this study led to undesirable side effects. Thesestudies demonstrate clearly that cefazolin can be administered on either
Table 2
Suggested single daily dosage requirements of aminoglycosides: adjustment for renal
insufficiency
Estimated level (ug/mL) at
EST CR CL
(mL/min)
Dosage
Interval (h)
Dose
(mg/kg) 1 h 18 h 24 h
Gentamicin/tobramycin
>80 24 5 20 \1 \1
70 24 4 16 \1 \1
60 24 4 16 1.5 \1
50 24 3.5 14 1 \1
40 24 2.5 10 1.5 \1
30 24 2.5 10 2.5 1.5
20 48 4 16 2 1
10 48 3 12 3 2
Hemodialysisa 48 2 8 6 5
Amikacin, kanamycin, streptomycin
>80 24 15 60 \1 \1
70 24 12 48 2.5 \1
50 24 7.5 30 3.5 1
30 24 4 20 5 3
20 48 7.5 30 3.3 1
10 48 4 16 5 3
Hemodialysisa 48 3 20 15 12
Netilmicin
>80 24 6.5 15 \1 \1
70 24 5 — — —
50 24 4 — — —
30 24 2 — — —
20 48 3 — — —
10 48 2.5 — — —
Hemodialysisa 48 2 — — —
Abbreviations: ESTCRCL, estimated creatine clearance.a Dose posthemodialysis.
Data fromGilbert DW, Bennett WM. Use of antimicrobial agents in renal failure. Infect Dis
Clin North Am 1989;3:517–31; and Gilbert DN, Mollering RC, Sande MA. The Sanford guide
to antimicrobial therapy 2003. Hyde Park, VT: Antimicrobial Therapy; 2003.
569L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
a weight-based or fixed-dose schedule after each dialysis session and canprovide a safe and effective alternative to vancomycin for susceptibleorganisms.
Serum levels
Because of potential toxicity, especially when combined, antimicrobialserum levels are most useful, and are generally obtained, when usingvancomycin or aminoglycosides. There is an increased incidence ofnephrotoxicity when these agents are combined. Appropriate dosingrequires consideration of multiple factors including patient weight, extra-cellular fluid shifts, renal function, hypoalbuminemia, location and severityof infection, and potential for toxicity. When administering aminoglycosidesit is even more important to establish safe serum levels in patients withunderlying renal failure because the potential for toxicity is greater.
Vancomycin drug levels have been reviewed extensively and are based onearly reports of clinical observation and toxicity [24]. Vancomycin exhibitsconcentration-independent killing in vitro and its pharmacokinetics areaffected by inoculum size. Serum levels, however, do not always correlatewith a favorable microbiologic response [25]. In contrast to aminoglyco-sides, vancomycin levels have not consistently correlated with toxicity andtheir use continues to be debated in the literature [26–29].
Unlike vancomycin, aminoglycosides exhibit concentration-dependentkilling. This is important clinically because bactericidal activity is directlyproportional to concentration levels [30]. Nevertheless, levels must befollowed closely with aminoglycosides because increased trough levels havecorrelated with nephrotoxicity [31]. Tables 1 and 2 can be used as guidelinesto help attain appropriate levels but in no way ensure their achievement.
Peak and trough concentrations are measured after achieving steady-state concentration. The latter correlates with the fourth dose in patientswith normal renal function assuming a loading dose has not been given. Thepeak concentration is measured approximately 30 to 60 minutes aftercompletion of infusion rather than immediately following the dose to allowfor rapid phase distribution to occur; otherwise, the measurement reflectsonly the plasma volume and not the extracellular compartment. Troughlevels are obtained before the next scheduled dose. Random levels areobtained in patients with underlying renal disease where the T1/2 issufficiently prolonged and intermittent dosing is being used.
Dialysis
When renal failure progresses to the point of uremia or inadequate urineoutput (oliguria), dialytic intervention is indicated. Typically, dialysis is
570 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
begun when the GFR or creatinine clearance is less than 15 mL/min fordiabetic patients or less than 10 mL/min for nondiabetic patients. There area number of dialytic modalities used in both acute and chronic renal failure.
Hemodialysis
Standard, thrice-weekly, intermittent hemodialysis is the mainstaytherapy of end-stage renal failure [32]. Box 1 summarizes the factorsaffecting drug clearance by hemodialysis. The clearance of low-molecular-weight antibiotics (\500 d) is dependent on blood flow rates, dialysate flowrates, and dialyzer surface area. As a rule, higher-molecular-weight drugs(>500 to 5000 d) are poorly dialyzed by conventional dialyzers. There is anever-increasing trend, however, toward using larger, more permeable (high
Box 1. Factors affecting hemodialysis drug clearance
Drug propertiesMolecular weightChargeLipid or water solubilityVd (tissue binding)Protein bindingOther forms of steric hindranceMembrane bindingRapid excretion by another pathwayRed blood cell partitioning
Hemodialyzer propertiesBlood flowSurface areaMembrane permeabilityPore sizeFluid films (membrane geometry)
Dialysate propertiesFlow rateSolute concentrationpHTemperature
Miscellaneous propertiesConvective transports during ultrafiltration
Data from Golper TA, Bennett WM. Drug usage in dialysis patients. In:Nissenson R, Fine RN, Gentile DE, editors. Clinical dialysis, 2nd edition. Norwalk(CT): Appleton and Lange; 1990. p. 608–30.
571L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
flux) membranes. These membranes have been shown to enhance theclearance of middle molecules, more recently defined as compounds ofmolecular weight 500 to 12,000 d, and increase the removal of both small-and larger-molecular-weight antibiotics [33–36]. To reduce the clearance ofantibiotics during high-flux hemodialysis and avoid subtherapeutic druglevels, the administration of antibiotics at the end of a dialysis session or theuse of higher intradialytic doses has been recommended [34,37–39]. Whenthe transport properties of a drug or antibiotic are not known, Maher[40,41] has proposed that the hemodialysis clearance of unbound drug canbe estimated by multiplying the urea clearance by the ratio of the molecularweight of urea (60 d) to the antibiotic’s molecular weight: KX = Kurea �60/MWx, where K is clearance, X is the antibiotic involved, and MW ismolecular weight.
The nephrologist administering the dialysis therapy should be able toprovide an estimate of the urea clearance for a given treatment. Fortunately,the dialyzability of many antibiotics and postdialysis supplement require-ments has been established [40–42]. These are summarized in Table 1.
Intermittent hemodialysis also remains the mainstay treatment of acuterenal failure. In this setting, however, it may be performed more or less oftenthan thrice weekly. It becomes very important to be aware of the dialysisschedule and to monitor antibiotic levels. Unfortunately, unless thelaboratory’s determination of the antibiotic level is performed and reportedquickly, the next dose of antibiotic is likely to have been administered beforethe trough level is known. In fact, the trough level obtained predialysis isobviously higher than the level at the end of dialysis when the next doseis typically administered. It is important to know when the trough level isobtained. If taken at the end of dialysis, there is no realistic opportunity forthe level to be known by the time of dosing, unless administration is delayed.
Continuous renal replacement therapy
Increasingly in acute renal failure, continuous methods of renal re-placement therapy are being used. These include continuous arteriovenoushemofiltration, continuous venovenous hemofiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodialysis, and continuous venovenous hemodialysis.
Hemofiltration (continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration, continuousvenovenous hemofiltration) refers to the removal of an ultrafiltrate ofplasma in which there is solute loss only by convection or solvent drag, notdiffusion. The plasma is filtered but no dialysate is used, so solute onlymoves along with plasma water. The efficiency of drug (or any solute)removal is related to the sieving coefficient (SC), which is the mathematicalexpression of the ability of a solute to cross a membrane convectively. TheSC is determined by the ratio of the concentration of the substance in theultrafiltrate to the plasma. When the patient is on continuous arteriovenoushemofiltration, the concentration of the substance may be different in
572 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
arterial versus venous samples. For practical purposes of antibiotic or drugadministration, the arterial and venous can be assumed to be equal:SC = [UF]/[A], where UF is the concentration of the antibiotic in theultrafiltrate and A is arterial concentration. An SC of 1 means thata substance freely crosses the membrane and is removed in the sameconcentration as it exists in the plasma. An SC of zero means there is noremoval (typically because of extensive size or protein binding factors). Therate of antibiotic clearance equals SC � UFR, where UFR is theultrafiltration rate.
Table 3 lists the SC for intravenous antibacterials commonly used to treatserious infections. Because continuous method of renal replacement therapyis by definition continuous, antibiotic levels in this setting more accuratelyreflect true real-time estimates of patient antibiotic levels than withintermittent hemodialysis. The two formulae used to determine the amountof antibiotic removed are amount antibiotic removed (in milligrams) = ul-trafiltrate concentration (milligrams per liter) � ultrafiltration rate (liters perminute) � time of procedure (minutes). This method depends on being ableto obtain antibiotic levels in the ultrafiltrate. The second method is toextrapolate the ultrafiltrate concentration from the plasma sample wherebyultrafiltrate concentration = [plasma] � unbound fraction (because only the
Table 3
Sieving coefficient
Antibacterials SC
Amikacin 0.9
Amphotericin B 0.3
Amphotericin B, liposomal 0.10
Ampicillin 0.7
Cefoxitin 0.6
Ceftazidime 0.9
Ceftriaxone 0.2
Ciprofloxacin 0.8
Gentamicin 0.8
Imipenem 1
Metronidazole 0.8
Mezlocillin 0.7
Oxacillin 0.02
Penicillin 0.7
Sulfamethoxazole 0.9
Vancomycin 0.8
There is usually a close correlation between sieving coefficient and unbound fraction because
only the free or unbound drug is available for removal by hemofiltration.
Abbreviations: SC, sieving coefficient.
Data fromGolper TA. Drug removal during continuous renal replacement therapy. In: Rose
BD, editor. Uptodate. Wellesley (MA): UpToDate; 2004; and Golper TA. Update on drug
sieving coefficients and dosing adjustments during continuous renal replacement therapies.
Contrib Nephrol 2001;132:349–53.
573L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
unbound fraction is filtered). The protein-bound fraction for commonlyused antibiotics in the critical care setting is provided in Table 1. It should benoted that these protein binding data are for healthy people and may be lessreliable in critically ill patients. Nonetheless, the amount of antibioticremoved (in milligrams)= [plasma] (milligrams per liter) � unboundfraction � ultrafiltration rate (liters per minute) � time of procedure(minutes). Note that the plasma sample should reflect a steady-state levelhalfway between maintenance doses and after at least three half-lives. Box 2provides a summary of predicting antibiotic removal during continuousarteriovenous hemofiltration [32,43–45].
Continuous hemodialysis
Removal of antibiotics during continuous arteriovenous hemodialysis orcontinuous venovenous hemodialysis occurs largely by diffusion across thedialyzer membrane into the drug-free dialysate on the other side of themembrane. Convection or solvent drag is a less significant factor in drugremoval in this modality. The two major limiting factors to antibioticremoval by diffusion are protein binding and molecular size. The type ofmembrane and its permeability characteristics are important determinantsof antibiotic and drug removal. As a rule, the membranes used incontinuous methods of renal replacement therapy are at least as permeable(and often more so) than those used in intermittent hemodialysis. Dosing formaintenance and additional or loading doses can be calculated when thedesired plasma concentration of the antibiotic is known. The presentlyobserved level is subtracted from the desired level. The difference inconcentrations (in milligrams per liter) � volume of distribution (in litersper kilogram) � body weight (in kilograms) represents the amount of
Box 2. Predicting continuous arteriovenous hemofiltrationdrug removal using blood concentrations
1. Determine steady-state blood concentration (from arteriallines).
2. Determine fraction not bound to circulating plasmaproteins (see Table 1).
3. Determine ultrafiltration rate from bedside dialysis flow sheet.4. Amount of drug removed (per time) is the steady-state
arterial blood concentration times the unbound fractiontimes the ultrafiltration rate.
Adapted from Golper TA, Wedel SK, Kaplan AA, et al. Drug removal duringcontinuous arteriovenous hemofiltration: theory and clinical observations. InternArtif Organs 1985;8:307–12.
574 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
antibiotic necessary to achieve the desired antibiotic plasma level. Thisformula can be applied when the amount of antibiotic removal has not beendirectly measured or calculated [32,44,46,47].
Peritoneal dialysis in end-stage renal failure
Peritoneal dialysis as a chronic modality is used by less than 15% of theend-stage renal failure population. The most common variety is continuousambulatory peritoneal dialysis in which the patient performs four exchangesper day (draining 2 L of dialysate then instilling two fresh liters of dialysateinto the peritoneal cavity where it dwells for 4–6 hours). Some patients usecontinuous cycler peritoneal dialysis machines, which perform a number ofexchanges with shorter dwell times during the night so the patient is freeduring the day. Often the patient performs an extra exchange during the dayto enhance adequacy of dialysis. In peritoneal dialysis, intraperitonealantibiotic administration can be used to load, maintain, or remove plasmalevels. Heparin and insulin, which are common intraperitoneal additives, donot affect the activity or stability of intraperitoneal antibiotics [48]. Thefactors affecting peritoneal drug clearance are listed in Box 3. Intraperito-neal dosing guidelines for commonly used antibiotics are found in Table 4,whereas intravenous dosing and supplementation are described in Table 1[32,48,49]. There is an inverse semilogarithmic relationship betweenperitoneal clearance and molecular weight. For most drugs, the peritonealclearance of unbound drug can be calculated by multiplying the ureaclearance (20 mL/min) by the ratio of the square root of the weight of urea(60 d) over the square root of the antibiotic’s molecular weight. Chargedantibiotics diffuse slower than neutral ones. As a rule, drugs not removed byhemodialysis are also not cleared by peritoneal dialysis [50].
Peritoneal dialysis in acute renal failure
Acute peritoneal dialysis may have variable dwell times from no dwelltime to 6 hours (similar to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis). Inthe setting of long dwell times (4–6 hours), the guidelines in the tables citedshould be appropriate for antibiotic dosing. In short dwell times, in-traperitoneal dosing may not be cost effective or as predictable in deliveringor removing antibiotic from the blood. In the critical care setting, multiplefactors may adversely affect clearance, such as hypotension or hypoperfu-sion of the mesenteric circulation, ileus, peristalsis, and dialysate tempera-ture [51,52]. In a patient receiving acute peritoneal dialysis with short dwells,it may be wisest to administer antibiotics intravenously and exploit theperitoneal dialysis as a means of clearing the drug to allow trough levels todevelop. As with any continuous method of renal replacement therapy,continuous administration, intravenous or intraperitoneal, could otherwiseresult in the absence of safe trough levels with potential antibiotic-relatedtoxicity. Because the number of exchanges per day (and hence degree of
575L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
antibiotic clearance achieved) may change frequently in the critical caresetting, it is important to communicate closely with the nephrologistoverseeing the peritoneal dialysis to help adjust antibiotic loading, mainte-nance, and removal based on the amount of dialysis being prescribed.
Adverse effects of antibacterial agents in renal failure
Numerous adverse effects have been reported from the use of antibac-terial agents in patients with renal failure. Many of these are related toinappropriate dosing, whereas others stem from pathologic changes
Box 3. Factors affecting peritoneal dialysis drug clearance
Drug propertiesMolecular weightChargeLipid or water solubilityVd (tissue binding)Protein bindingOther forms of steric hindranceRapid excretion by another pathwayRed cell partitioning
Intrinsic peritoneal membrane propertiesSurface blood flowSurface areaLocationSclerosisPore sizeVascular diseaseFluid films
Dialysate propertiesFlow rateVolumeChemical compositionDistributionTemperature
Miscellaneous propertiesUltrafiltrationClearance-raising additives
Data from Golper TA. Drugs and peritoneal dialysis. Dial Transplant 1979;8:41–3.
576 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
associated with uremia. An excellent review of this topic has been publishedby Manian et al [53].
Neurologic toxicity, including psychosis, visual and auditory hallucina-tions, myoclonus, and seizures has been reported with the use of penicillin,imipenem, b-lactams, acyclovir, amantadine, and quinolones [54–57].Ototoxicity, in the form of reversible auditory dysfunction, can result fromhigh dosages of erythromycin [58]. It remains unclear whether renal failureis an independent risk factor for aminoglycoside or vancomycin-inducedototoxicity. Sulfonamide-induced hypoglycemia is believed to be the resultof the structural similarity of sulfamethoxazole and hypoglycemic agents.Sulfamethoxazole may stimulate insulin secretion and can displace oralhypoglycemic agents from serum proteins making more free drug available[59,60]. This interaction can be further exacerbated by decreased clearance
Table 4
Intraperitoneal antibiotic dosing guidelines
Loading dose
Drug (mg/kg) (mg/L) Maintenance dose (mg/L)
Aminoglycosides
Amikacin 6 15
Gentamicin 1.7 5
Netimicin 1.7 5
Tobramycin 1.7 5
Cephalosporins 500–1000 125–250
Penicillins
Ampicillin 500 50
Azlocillin 1000 125–250
Carbenicillin 1000 125–250
Cloxacillin 1000 125
Mezlocillin 1000 125–250
Nafcillin 1000 125
Penicillin 106 U 50,000 U
Piperacillin 1000 125–250
Ticarcillin 1000 125–250
Miscellaneous agents
Aztreonam 500 250
Ciprofloxacin 10 10–20
Clindamycin 300 150
Erythromycin 150 75
Imipenem 500 200
Metronidazole 15 (IV) 10
Rifampina
Sulfamethoxazole 200 � 2 wk 100 � 2 wk
Trimethoprim 40 � 2 wk 20 � 2 wk
Vancomycin 500–1000 15
a Administered orally at an adult dose of 600 mg/d.
Data from Golper TA, Bennett WM. Drug usage in dialysis patients. In: Nissenson R, Fine
RN, Gentile DE, editors. Clinical dialysis. 2nd edition. Norwalk (CT): Appleton and Lange;
1990. p. 608–30.
577L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
and protein binding of sulfamethoxazole in uremia. Platelet aggregationabnormalities induced by high doses of penicillins exacerbate the plateletdysfunction of uremia and vitamin K deficiency, and augment the effect ofheparin with hemodialysis [61–63]. Renal failure does not seem to be anindependent risk factor for the coagulopathy associated with cephalosporinscontaining the N-methyl-thiotetrazole side chain; vitamin K deficiency,often present in renal failure, seems to be the culprit [64]. Fluoroquinoloneshave been associated with spontaneous Achilles tendon rupture in patientswith underlying renal failure [65]. The tetracycline antibiotics (with theexception of doxycycline) should be avoided in patients with renal in-sufficiency because there has been an increased incidence of hepatotoxicity.Rarely, acute fatty necrosis of the liver can occur in patients with underlyingrenal dysfunction [66].
References
[1] Aronoff GR, Abel SR. Principles of administering drugs to patients with renal failure. In:
Brenner BM, Stein JH, editors. Contemporary issues in nephrology. New York: Churchill-
Livingstone; 1986. p. 77–82.
[2] Hurwitz A. Antacid therapy in drug kinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1977;12:269–80.
[3] Bennett W, Arnoff G, Golper T, et al. Drug prescribing in renal failure, dosing guidelines
for adults. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1994.
[4] Reindenberg MM. The biotransformation of drugs in renal failure. Am J Med 1977;62:
482–5.
[5] Cockroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine.
Nephron 1976;16:31–41.
[6] Pesola GR, Akhavan I, Madu A, Shah NK, Carlton GC. Prediction equation estimates of
creatinine clearance in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 1993;19:39–43.
[7] Devine BJ. Gentamicin pharmacokinetics. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1974;8:650–5.
[8] Sher PP. Drug interferences with clinical laboratory tests. Drugs 1982;24:24.
[9] Sandburg T, Trollfors B. Effect of trimethoprim on serum creatinine in patients with acute
cystitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986;17:123.
[10] Harrington D, Drusano G, Smalls V, et al. False elevations of serum creatinine. JAMA
1984;252:2962.
[11] Sherman RA, Eisenger RP, Weinstein MP, et al. Cefoxitin-induced pseudo acute renal
failure. Clin Ther 1981;4:114.
[12] Demczar DJ, Nafziger AN, Bertino JS. Pharmacokinetics of gentamicin at traditional
versus high doses: implications for once daily aminoglycoside dosing. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 1997;41:1115–9.
[13] Lacy MK, Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, Quintilaini R. The pharmacodynamics of
aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:23–7.
[14] Chuck SK, Raber SR, Rodvold KA, Areft D. National survey of extended-interval
aminoglycoside dosing. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:433–9.
[15] Guiliano RA, Verpooten GA, DeBroe ME. The effect of dosing strategy on kidney cortical
accumulation of aminoglycosides in rats. Am J Kidney Dis 1986;8:292–6.
[16] Hatala R, Dinh T, Cook DJ. Once daily aminoglycoside dosing in immunocompetent
adults: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:717–25.
[17] Freeman CD, Nicolau DP, Belliveau PP, Nightingale CH. Once daily aminoglycosides:
review and recommendations for clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997;39:
677–86.
578 L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
[18] Rybak MJ, Abate BJ, Kang SL, et al. Prospective evaluation of the effect of an
aminoglycoside dosing regimen on rates of observed nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43:1549–55.
[19] Nicolau DP, Freeman CD, Belliveau PP, et al. Experience with a once daily aminoglyco-
side program administered to 2,184 adult patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995;39:
650–5.
[20] CDC. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1994;44(RR-12):1–13.
[21] Sowinski KM, Mueller BA, Grabe DW, et al. Cefazolin dialytic clearance by high-
efficiency and high-flux hemodialyzers. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37:766–76.
[22] Fogel MA, Nussbaum PB, Feintzeig ID, et al. Cefazolin in chronic hemodialysis patients:
a safe, effective alternative to vancomycin. Am J Kidney Dis 1998;32:401–9.
[23] Kuypers D, Vanwalleghem J, Maes B, et al. Cefazolin serum concentrations with fixed
intravenous dosing in patients on chronic hemodialysis treatment. Nephrol Dial
Transplant 1999;14:2050–1.
[24] Geraci JE, Hermans PE. Vancomycin. Mayo Clin Proc 1983;58:88–91.
[25] Ackerman BH, Vannier AM, Eudy EB. Analysis of vancomycin time-kill studies with
Staphylococcus species by using a curve stripping program to describe the relationship
between concentration and pharmacodynamic response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
1992;36:1766–9.
[26] Freeman CD, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring: is
it necessary? Ann Pharmacother 1993;27:594–8.
[27] Saunders NJ. Vancomycin administration and monitoring reappraisal. J Antimicrob
Chemother 1995;36:279–82.
[28] Hammett-Stabler CA, Johns T. Laboratory guidelines for monitoring of antimicrobial
drugs. Clin Chem 1998;44:1129–40.
[29] Tobin CM, Darville JM, Thomson AH, et al. Vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring: is
there a consensus view? J Antimicrob Chemother 2002;50:713–8.
[30] Lacy MK, Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R. The pharmacodynamics of
aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:23–7.
[31] Raveh D, Kopyt M, Hite Y, et al. Risk factors for nephrotoxicity in elderly patients
receiving one-daily aminoglycosides. Q J Med 2002;95:291–7.
[32] Golper TA, Bennett WM. Drug usage in dialysis patients. In: Nissenson R, Fine RN,
Gentile DE, editors. Clinical dialysis. 2nd edition. Norwalk (CT): Appleton and Lange;
1990. p. 608–30.
[33] Vanholder R, DeSmet R, Glorieux G, et al. Review on uremic toxins: classification,
concentration, and interindividual variability. Kidney Int 2003;63:1934–43.
[34] Marx MA, Frye RF, Matzke GR, Golper TA. Cefazolin as empiric therapy in
hemodialysis-related infections: efficacy and blood concentrations. Am J Kidney Dis
1998;32:410–4.
[35] Sowinski KM, Mueller BA, Grabe DW, et al. Cefazolin dialytic clearance by high-
efficiency and high-flux hemodialyzers. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37:766–76.
[36] Barth RH, DeVincenzo N, Zara AC, Berlyne GM. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics in high-
flux hemodialysis [abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol 1990;1:348.
[37] Barth RH, DeVincenzo N. Use of vancomycin in high-flux hemodialysis: experience with
130 courses of therapy. Kidney Int 1996;50:929–36.
[38] Foote EF, Dreitlein WB, Steward CA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of vancomycin when
administered during high flux hemodialysis. Clin Nephrol 1998;50:51–5.
[39] Mason NA, Neudeck BL, Welage LS, et al. Comparison of 3 vancomycin dosage regimens
during hemodialysis with cellulose triacetate dialyzers: post-dialysis versus intradialytic
administration. Clin Nephrol 2003;60:96–104.
[40] Maher JF. Pharmacokinetics in patients with renal failure. Clin Nephrol 1984;21:39–46.
[41] Maher JF. Principles of dialysis and dialysis of drugs. Am J Med 1977;62:475–81.
579L.L. Livornese Jr et al / Infect Dis Clin N Am 18 (2004) 551–579
[42] Gibson TP. Dialyzability of common therapeutic agents. Dial Transplant 1979;8:24.
[43] Golper TA, Wedel SK, Kaplen AA, et al. Drug removal during continuous
arteriovenous hemofiltration: theory and clinical observations. Intern Artif Organs 1985;
8:307–12.
[44] Golper TA. Drug removal during continuous renal replacement therapy. In: Rose BD,
editor. Uptodate. Wellesley (MA): UpToDate; 2004.
[45] Vincent HH, Vos MC, Akcahuseyin E, et al. Drug clearance by continuous hemodialfiltra-
tion (CAVHD): analysis of sieving coefficients of diffusions. Blood Purif 1993;11:99.
[46] Sigler MH, Teehan BP, Van Valkenbrugh D. Solute transport in continuous hemodialysis:
a new treatment for acute renal failure. Kidney Int 1987;32:562–71.
[47] Golper TA. Update on drug sieving coefficients and dosing adjustments during continuous
renal replacement therapies. Contrib Nephrol 2001;132:349–53.
[48] Sewell DL, Golper TA, Brown SD, et al. Stability of single and combination antimicrobial
agents in various peritoneal dialysates in the presence of heparin and insulin. Am J Kidney
Dis 1983;3:209–12.
[49] Golper TA. Drugs and peritoneal dialysis. Dial Transplant 1979;8:41–3.
[50] Lasrich M, Maher JM, Hirszel P, et al. Correlation of peritoneal transport rates with
molecular weight: a method for predicting clearances. ASAIO J 1979;2:107–13.
[51] Gross M, McDonald HP. Effect of dialysate temperature and flow rate of peritoneal
clearance. JAMA 1967;202:363–6.
[52] Nolph KD, Popovich RP, Ghods AJ, et al. Determinants of low clearances of small solutes
during peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int 1978;13:117–23.
[53] Manian F, Stone W, Alford R. Adverse antibiotic effects associated with renal
insufficiency. Rev Infect Dis 1990;12:236–49.
[54] Calandra G, Lydic E, Carrigan J, et al. Factors predisposing to seizures in seriously ill
infected patients receiving antibiotics: experience with imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med
1988;84:911–8.
[55] Ing TS, Daugirdas JT, Soung LS, et al. Toxic effects of amantadine in patients with renal
failure. Can Med Assoc J 1979;120:695–8.
[56] Oldstone MBA, Nelson E. Central nervous system manifestations of penicillin toxicity in
man. Neurology 1966;16:693–700.
[57] Wright AJ. The penicillins. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:290–307.
[58] Kroboth PD, McNeil MA, Kreeger A, et al. Hearing loss and erythromycin
pharmacokinetics in a patient receiving hemodialysis. Arch Intern Med 1983;143:1263–5.
[59] Frankel MC, Leslie BR, Sax FL, Soave R. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-related
hypoglycemia in a patient with renal failure. N Y State J Med 1984;84:30–1.
[60] Lawson DH, Paice BJ. Adverse reactions to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Rev Infect
Dis 1982;4:429–33.
[61] Andrassy K, Scherz M, Ritz E, et al. Penicillin-induced coagulation disorder. Lancet 1976;
2:1039–41.
[62] McClure PD, Casserly JG, Monsier C, et al. Carbenicillin-induced bleeding disorder.
Lancet 1970;2:1307–8.
[63] Stuart JJ. Ticarcillin-induced hemorrhage in a patient with thrombocytosis. South Med J
1980;73:1084–5.
[64] Cohen H, Scott SD, Mackie IJ, et al. The development of hypoprothrombinaemia
following antibiotic therapy in malnourished patients with low serum vitamin K1 levels. Br
J Haematol 1988;68:63–6.
[65] Linden PD, Sturkenboom MC, Herings RM, et al. Increases risk of Achilles tendon
rupture with quinolone antibacterial use, especially in elderly patients taking oral
corticosteroids. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1801–7.
[66] Smilack JD. The tetracyclines. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:727–9.