Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 42, Issue 9, pp 793–817 | Cite as

Selecting Antibacterials for Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Considerations
Review Article


Some infectious diseases require management with parenteral therapy, although the patient may not need hospitalisation. Consequently, the administration of intravenous antimicrobials in a home or infusion clinic setting has now become commonplace. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is considered safe, therapeutically effective and economical. A broad range of infections can be successfully managed with OPAT, although this form of treatment is unnecessary when oral therapy can be used. Many antimicrobials can be employed for OPAT and the choice of agent(s) and regimen should be based upon sound clinical and microbiological evidence. Assessments of cost and convenience should be made subsequent to these primary treatment outcome determinants. When designing an OPAT treatment regimen, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the individual agents should also be considered.

Pharmacokinetics (PK) is the study of the time course of absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of drugs (what the body does to the drug). Clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring has been used to overcome the pharmacokinetic variability of antimicrobials and enable individualised dosing regimens that attain desirable antimicrobial serum concentrations. Pharmacodynamics (PD) is the study of the relationship between the serum concentration of a drug and the clinical response observed in a patient (what the drug does to the body). By combining pharmacokinetic properties (peak [Cmax] or trough [Cmin] serum concentrations, half-life, area under the curve) and pharmacodynamic properties (susceptibility results, minimum inhibitory concentrations [MIC] or minimum bactericidal concentrations [MBC], bactericidal or bacteriostatic killing, post-antibiotic effects), unique PK/PD parameters or indices (t > MIC, Cmax/MIC, AUC24/MIC) can be defined.

Depending on the killing characteristics of a given class of antimicrobials (concentration-dependent or time-dependent), specific PK/PD parameters may predict in vitro bacterial eradication rates and correlate with in vivo microbiologic and clinical cures. An understanding of these principles will enable the clinician to vary dosing schemes and design individualised dosing regimens to achieve optimal PK/PD parameters and potentially improve patient outcomes. This paper will review basic principles of useful PK/PD parameters for various classes of antimicrobials as they may relate to OPAT.

In summary, OPAT has become an important treatment option for the management of infectious diseases in the community setting. To optimise treatment course outcomes, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the individual agents should be carefully considered when designing OPAT treatment regimens.


Minimum Inhibitory Concentration Vancomycin Linezolid Minimum Bactericidal Concentration Clinical Cure Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Rucker RW, Harrison GM. Outpatient intravenous medications in the management of cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics 1974; 54: 358–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stiver HG, Telford GO, Mossey JM. Intravenous antibiotic therapy at home. Ann Intern Med 1978; 89: 690–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniskis A, Anderson BC, Van Volkinberg EL, et al. Feasibility of outpatient self-administration of parenteral antibiotics. West J Med 1978; 128: 203–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stiver HG, Trosky SK, Cote DD, et al. Self-administration of intravenous antibiotics: an efficient, cost-effective home care program. CMAJ 1982; 127: 207–11Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poretz DM, Eron LJ, Goldenberg RI, et al. Intravenous antibiotic therapy in an outpatient setting. JAMA 1982; 248: 336–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balinsky W, Nesbitt S. Cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antibiotics: a review of the literature. Am J Med 1989; 87: 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poretz DM, editor. Outpatient use of intravenous antibiotics. Am J Med 1994; 97 Suppl. 2A: 1–55Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stiver G, Wai A, Chase L, et al. Outpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy: the Vancouver Hospital experience. Can J Infect Dis 2000; 11 Suppl. A: 11A–4AGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams DN, Rehm SJ, Tice AD, et al. Practice guidelines for community-based parenteral anti-infective therapy. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25: 787–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wai AO, Frighetto L, Marra CA, et al. Cost analysis of an adult Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy (OPAT) programme: a Canadian teaching hospital and Ministry of Health perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 451–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thickson ND. Economics of home intravenous services. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3(3): 220–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindes R, Winkler C, Kane P, et al. Outpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy in Medicare patients: cost-savings analysis. Infect Dis Clin Pract 1995; 4: 211–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Board N, Brennan NJ, Caplan GA. A randomised controlled trial of the costs of hospital as compared in the home for acute medical patients. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000; 24: 305–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tice AD. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the ambulatory use of parenteral cephalosporins. Drugs 2000; 59: 29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodfellow A, Wai A, Chan E, et al. Cost-benefit, quality of life and willingness to pay analyses of the Home IV Antibiotic program: a Canadian perspective [abstract]. The Canadian Association for Population Therapeutics Conference; 2001 Apr 1–3; Banff, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amsden GW, Schentag JJ. Tables of antimicrobial agent pharmacology. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 1995: 492–528Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karchmer AW. Cephalosporins. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 1995: 492–528Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chambers HF. Penicillins. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston; 1995: 492–528Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilbert DN. Aminoglycosides. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 1995: 492–528Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andes DR, Craig WA. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of outpatient intravenous antimicrobial therapy. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1998; 12: 849–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benet LZ, Oie S, Schwartz JB. Design and optimization of dosage regimens; pharmacokinetic data. (Appendix II). In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors. Goodman and Gilman’s The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professions Division, 1996: 1707–92Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gilbert DN, Moellering RC, Sande MA. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy. 31st ed. Hyde Park, Vermont: Antimicrobial Therapy Inc., 2001: 56–7Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marra F, Jewesson PJ. Vancomycin serum concentration monitoring: the middle ground is best. Clin Drug Investig 1996; 12: 105–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aminimanizani A, Beringer P, Jelliffe R. Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the newer fluoroquinolone antibacterials. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40: 169–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manzella JP. Quinupristin-dalfopristin: a new antibiotic for severe gram-positive infections. Am Fam Phys 2001; 64: 1863–6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jewesson PJ. Pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic and other considerations for intravenous to oral stepdown therapy. Can J Infect Dis 1995; 6 Suppl. A: 11A–6AGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turnidge J. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amsden GW, Schentag JJ. Tables of antimicrobial agent pharmacology. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 1995: 247–64Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amsden GW, Schentag JJ. Tables of antimicrobial agent pharmacology. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 1995: 233–46Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amsden GW, Schentag JJ. Tables of antimicrobial agent pharmacology. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 1995: 279–306Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lietman PS. Pharmacokinetics of antimicrobial agents. In Mandell GL, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990: 228–30Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stein GE. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of newer fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23 Suppl. 1: S19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Paladino JA, Sperry HE, Backes JM, et al. Clinical and economic evaluation of oral ciprofloxacin after an abbreviated course of intravenous antibiotics. Am J Med 1991; 91: 462–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paladino JA, Zimmer GS, Schentag JJ. The economic potential of dual individualisation methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 539–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frighetto L, Nickoloff D, Martinusen SM, et al. Intravenous-to-oral stepdown program: four years of experience in a large teaching hospital. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 1447–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malfair SC, Frighetto L, Nickoloff DM, et al. Evaluation of the use of cefuroxime and cefuroxime axetil in an intravenous-oral stepdown program. Ann Pharmacother 1996; 30: 337–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jewesson P. Cost-effectiveness and value of an IV switch. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5 Suppl. 2: 20–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paladino JA. Is more than one quinolone needed in clinical practice?. Ann Pharmacother 2001; 35: 1085–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pea F, Furlanut M. Pharmacokinetic aspects of treating infections in the intensive care unit: focus on drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40: 833–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gregg CR. Drug interactions and anti-infective therapies. Am J Med 1999; 106: 227–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gillum JG, Israel DS, Polk RE. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with antimicrobial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 25: 450–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Michalets EL. Update: clinically significant cytochrome P-450 drug interactions. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 84–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dresser GK, Spence JD, Bailey DG. Pharmacokinetic-pharma-codynamic consequences and clinical relevance of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000; 38(1): 41–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Albengres E, Le Louet H, Tillement JP. Systemic antifungal agents: drug interactions of clinical significance. Drug Saf 1998; 18: 83–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lomaestro BM, Piatek MA. Update on drug interactions with azole antifungal agents. Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32: 915–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Venkatakrishnan K, von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ. Effects of the antifungal agents on oxidative drug metabolism: clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000; 38: 111–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pai MP, Graci DM, Amsden GW. Macrolide drug interactions: an update. Ann Pharmacother 2000; 34: 495–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fish DN. Fluoroquinolone adverse effects and drug interactions. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21: 253S–72SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jewesson PJ. Overcoming antibiotic resistance: a physicians’ guide. Can J CME 1998; 3: 137–50Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ackerman BH, Dello Buono FA. In vitro testing of antibiotics. Pharmacotherapy 1996; 16: 201–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hyatt JM, McKinnon PS, Zimmer GS, et al. The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome: focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28: 143–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schentag JJ, Strenkoski-Nix LC, Nix DE, et al. Pharmacodynamic interactions of antibiotics alone and in combination. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 40–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    White RL. What in vitro models of infection can and cannot do. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21(11 Pt 2): 292S–301SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jacobs MR. Optimisation of antimicrobial therapy using pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7: 589–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sanchez-Navarro A, Sanchez Recio MM. Basis of anti-infective therapy: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic criteria and methodology for dual dosage individualisation. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 289–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li RC, Zhu M, Schentag JJ. Achieving an optimal outcome in the treatment of infections: the role of clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimicrobials. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Levison ME. Pharmacodynamics of antibacterial drugs. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000; 14: 281–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Li RC. New pharmacodynamic parameters for antimicrobial agents. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2000; 13: 229–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gunderson BW, Ross GH, Ibrahim KH, et al. What do we really know about antibiotic pharmacodynamics?. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21(11 Pt 2): 302S–18SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rodvold KA. Pharmacodynamics of antiinfective therapy: taking what we know to the patient’s bedside. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21(11 Pt 2): 319S–30SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schentag JJ, Gilliland KK, Paladino JA. What have we learned from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic theories?. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32 Suppl. 1: S39–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Burgess DS. Pharmacodynamic principles of antimicrobial therapy in the prevention of resistance. Chest 1999; 115(3 Suppl.): 19S–23SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Craig WA, Ebert SC. Killing and regrowth of bacteria in vitro: a review. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1990; 11: 319–26Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Craig WA, Ebert SC. Killing and regrowth of bacteria in vitro: a review. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1991; 74: 63–70Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Spivey JM. The postantibiotic effect. Clin Pharm 1992; 11: 865–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Verbist L. Relevance of antibiotic susceptibility testing for clinical practice. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993; 12 Suppl. 1: S2–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schentag JJ, Smith IL, Swanson DJ, et al. Role for dual individualization with cefmenoxime. Am J Med 1984; 77: 43–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schentag JJ, Swanson DJ, Smith IL. Dual individualization: antibiotic dosage calculation from the integration of in-vitro pharmacodynamics and in-vivo pharmacokinetics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15 Suppl. A: 47–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schentag JJ, Nix DE, Adelman MH. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles (I): relationships between AUC above MIC and area under the inhibitory curve for cefmenoxime, ciprofloxacin, and tobramycin. DICP 1991; 25: 1050–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schentag JJ, Nix DE, Forrest A, et al. AUIC: the universal parameter within the constraint of a reasonable dosing interval. Ann Pharmacother 1996; 30: 1029–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Turnidge JD. The pharmacodynamics of beta-lactams. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 10–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Craig WA. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995: 22: 89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Craig WA. Antimicrobial resistance issues of the future. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1996; 25: 213–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Craig WA, Andes D. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antibiotics in otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996; 15: 255–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gilbert DN, Dworkin RJ, Raber SR, et al. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial-drug therapy. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 829–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Servais H, Tulkens PM. Stability and compatibility of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion to intensive care patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2643–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bodey GP, Ketchel SJ, Rodriguez V. A randomized study of carbenicillin plus cefamandole or tobramycin in the treatment of febrile episodes in cancer patients. Am J Med 1979; 67: 608–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    MacGowan AP, Bowker KE. Continuous infusion of betalactam antibiotics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 35: 391–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Burgess DS, Hastings RW, Hardin TC. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cefepime administered by intermittent and continuous infusion. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 66–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, Banevicius MA, et al. Serum bactericidal activity of ceftazidime: continuous infusion versus intermittent injections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 61–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Benko AS, Cappelletty DM, Kruse JA, et al. Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in critically ill patients with suspected gram-negative infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 691–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hanes SD, Wood GC, Herring V, et al. Intermittent and continuous ceftazidime infusion for critically ill trauma patients. Am J Surg 2000; 179: 436–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nicolau DP, McNabb J, Lacy MK, et al. Continuous versus intermittent administration of ceftazidime in intensive care unit patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001; 17: 497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    McNabb JJ, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21: 549–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ambrose PG, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH, et al. Continuous vs intermittent infusion of cefuroxime for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin Pract 1998; 7: 463–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Grant EM, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP, et al. Clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of a continuous-infusion piperacillin-tazobactam program in a large community teaching hospital. Pharmacotherapy 2002; 22: 471–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    MacGowan AP. Pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and therapeutic drug monitoring of glycopeptides. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20: 473–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Larsson AJ, Walker KJ, Raddatz JK, et al. The concentration-independent effect of monoexponential and biexponential decay in vancomycin concentrations on the killing of Staphylococcus aureus under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 589–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Duffull SB, Begg EJ, Chambers ST, et al. Efficacies of different vancomycin dosing regimens against Staphylococcus aureus determined with a dynamic in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2480–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Cantoni L, Wenger A, Glauser MP, et al. Comparative efficacy of amoxicillin-clavulanate, cloxacillin, and vancomycin against methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in rats. J Infect Dis 1989; 159: 989–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Schaad UB, McCracken Jr GH, Nelson JD. Clinical pharmacology and efficacy of vancomycin in pediatric patients. J Pediatr 1980; 96: 119–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zimmermann AE, Katona BG, Plaisance KI. Association of vancomycin serum concentrations with outcomes in patients with gram-positive bacteremia. Pharmacotherapy 1995; 15: 85–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Klepser ME, Kang SL, McGrath BJ, et al. Influence of vancomycin serum concentration on the outcome of gram-positive infections. Presented at The American College of Clinical Pharmacy Annual Winter Meeting; 1994 Feb 4–6; San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rybak MJ, Capelletty MJ, Ruffing RC, et al. Influence of vancomycin serum concentrations on the outcome of patients being treated for Gram-positive infections [abstract]. Abstracts of the 37th Intersci Conf on Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 1997 Sep 28–Oct 1: A46Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Edwards DJ, Pancorbo S. Routine monitoring of serum vancomycin concentrations: waiting for proof of its value. Clin Pharm 1987; 6: 652–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Freeman CD, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring: is it necessary?. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 594–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Moellering Jr RC. Monitoring serum vancomycin levels: climbing the mountain because it is there?. [published erratum appears in Clin Infect Dis 1994; 19: 379]. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18: 544–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cantu TG, Yamanaka-Yuen NA, Lietman PS. Serum vancomycin concentrations: reappraisal of their clinical value. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18: 533–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Leader WG, Chandler MH, Castiglia M. Pharmacokinetic optimisation of vancomycin therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28: 327–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Saunders NJ. Vancomycin administration and monitoring reappraisal. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36: 279–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Shalansky S. Rationalization of vancomycin serum concentration monitoring. Can J Hosp Pharm 1995; 48: 17–24Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Begg EJ, Barclay ML, Kirkpatrick CM. The therapeutic monitoring of antimicrobial agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52 Suppl. 1: 35S–43SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Welty TE, Copa AK. Impact of vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring on patient care. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 1335–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Fernandez de Gatta MD, Calvo MV, Hernandez JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of serum vancomycin concentration monitoring in patients with hematologic malignancies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 60: 332–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    James JK, Palmer SM, Levine DP, et al. Comparison of conventional dosing versus continuous-infusion vancomycin therapy for patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 696–700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Klepser ME, Patel KB, Nicolau DP, et al. Comparison of bactericidal activities of intermittent and continuous infusion dosing of vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 1069–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Lacy MK, Tessier PR, Nicolau DP, et al. Comparison of vancomycin pharmacodynamics (1g every 12 or 24 h) against methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2000; 15: 25–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Wysocki M, Thomas F, Wolff MA, et al. Comparison of continuous with discontinuous intravenous infusion of vancomycin in severe MRSA infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 352–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Albanese J, Leone M, Bruguerolle B, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid penetration and pharmacokinetics of vancomycin administered by continuous infusion to mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care unit. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1356–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wysocki M, Delatour F, Faurisson F, et al. Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections: prospective multicenter randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2460–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Blaser J, Stone BB, Groner MC, et al. Comparative study with enoxacin and netilmicin in a pharmacodynamic model to determine importance of ratio of antibiotic peak concentration to MIC for bactericidal activity and emergence of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 1054–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Dudley MN, Blaser J, Gilbert D, et al. Combination therapy with ciprofloxacin plus azlocillin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa: effect of simultaneous versus staggered administration in an in vitro model of infection. J Infect Dis 1991; 164: 499–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Lode H, Borner K, Koeppe P. Pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 33–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Drusano GL, Johnson DE, Rosen M, et al. Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 483–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Leggett JE, Fantin B, Ebert S, et al. Comparative antibiotic dose-effect relations at several dosing intervals in murine pneumonitis and thigh-infection models. J Infect Dis 1989; 159: 281–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Peloquin CA, Cumbo TJ, Nix DE, et al. Evaluation of intravenous ciprofloxacin in patients with nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections: impact of plasma concentrations, organism, minimum inhibitory concentration, and clinical condition on bacterial eradication. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 2269–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Forrest A, Nix DE, Ballow CH, et al. Pharmacodynamics of intravenous ciprofloxacin in seriously ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1073–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Forrest A, Chodosh S, Amantea MA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral grepafloxacin in patients with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 40 Suppl. A: 45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Preston SL, Drusano GL, Berman AL, et al. Pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin: a new paradigm for early clinical trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 125–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Zhanel GG, Walters M, Laing N, et al. In vitro pharmacodynamic modelling simulating free serum concentrations of fluoroquinolones against multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47: 435–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ambrose PG, Grasela DM, Grasela TH, et al. Pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with community-acquired respiratory tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2793–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Zhanel GG, Ennis K, Vercaigne L, et al. A critical review of fluoroquinolones: focus on respiratory tract infections. Drugs 2002; 62: 13–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Thomas JK, Forrest A, Bhavnani SM, et al. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 521–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Craig WA, Redington J, Ebert SC. Pharmacodynamics of amikacin in vitro and in mouse thigh and lung infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. C: 29–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Vogelman B, Gudmundsson S, Leggett J, et al. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. J Infect Dis 1988; 158: 831–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Bayer AS, Norman D, Kim KS. Efficacy of amikacin and ceftazidime in experimental aortic valve endocarditis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 28: 781–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Noone P, Parsons TM, Pattison JR, et al. Experience in monitoring gentamicin therapy during treatment of serious gramnegative sepsis. BMJ 1974; 1: 477–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Moore RD, Smith CR, Lietman PS. The association of aminoglycoside plasma levels with mortality in patients with gramnegative bacteremia. J Infect Dis 1984; 149: 443–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Moore RD, Smith CR, Lietman PS. Association of aminoglycoside plasma levels with therapeutic outcome in gram-negative pneumonia. Am J Med 1984; 77: 657–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Deziel-Evans LM, Murphy JE, Job ML. Correlation of pharmacokinetic indices with therapeutic outcome in patients receiving aminoglycosides. Clin Pharm 1986; 5: 319–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR. Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis 1987: 155: 93–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Kashuba AD, Bertino Jr JS, Nafziger AN. Dosing of aminoglycosides to rapidly attain pharmacodynamic goals and hasten therapeutic response by using individualized pharmacokinetic monitoring of patients with pneumonia caused by gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 1842–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Kashuba AD, Nafziger AN, Drusano GL, et al. Optimizing aminoglycoside therapy for nosocomial pneumonia caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 623–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Galloe AM, Graudal N, Christensen HR, et al. Aminoglycosides single or multiple daily dosing?: a meta-analysis on efficacy and safety. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 48: 39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Blaser J, Konig C. Once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14: 1029–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Barza M, Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, et al. Single or multiple daily doses of aminoglycosides: a meta-analysis. BMJ 1996; 312(7027): 338–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Munckhof WJ, Grayson ML, Turnidge JD. A meta-analysis of studies on the safety and efficacy of aminoglycosides given either once daily or as divided doses. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 645–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Hatala R, Dinh T, Cook DJ. Once-daily aminoglycoside dosing in immunocompetent adults: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 717–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Ferriols-Lisart R, Alos-Alminana M. Effectiveness and safety of once-daily aminoglycosides: a meta-analysis. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996; 53: 1141–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Freeman CD, Strayer AH. Mega-analysis of meta-analysis: an examination of meta-analysis with an emphasis on once-daily aminoglycoside comparative trials. Pharmacotherapy 1996; 16: 1093–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Bailey TC, Little JR, Littenberg B, et al. A meta-analysis of extended-interval dosing versus multiple daily dosing of aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 786–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Ali MZ, Goetz MB. A meta-analysis of the relative efficacy and toxicity of single daily dosing versus multiple daily dosing of aminoglycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 796–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Rapp RP. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous and oral azithromycin: enhanced tissue activity and minimal drug interactions. Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32: 785–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Ebert S, Rikardsdottit S, Craig WA. Pharmacodynamic comparison of clarithromycin vs erythromycin [abstract]. In: Program and abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1991: 509Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Nightingale CH. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of newer macrolides. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997; 16: 438–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Craig W, Rikardsdottir S, Watanabe Y. In vivo and in vitro postantibiotic effects (PAEs) of azithromycin [abstract]. In: Program and abstracts of the 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1992: 45Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Lewis RE, Klepser ME, Ernst EJ, et al. Evaluation of low-dose, extended-interval clindamycin regimens against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae using a dynamic in vitro model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999: 43: 2005–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Nix DE, Tyrrell R, Muller M. Pharmacodynamics of metronidazole determined by a time-kill assay for Trichomonas vaginalis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1848–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Spence MR, Harwell TS, Davies MC, et al. The minimum single oral metronidazole dose for treating trichomoniasis: a randomized, blinded study. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89(5 Pt 1): 699–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Lamb HM, Figgitt DP, Faulds D. Quinupristin/dalfopristin: a review of its use in the management of serious gram-positive infections. Drugs 1999; 58: 1061–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Delgado Jr G, Neuhauser MM, Bearden DT, et al. Quinupristin-dalfopristin: an overview. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 1469–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Rybak MJ, Houlihan HH, Mercier RC, et al. Pharmacodynamics of RP 59500 (quinupristin-dalfopristin) administered by intermittent versus continuous infusion against Staphylococcus aureus-infected fibrin-platelet clots in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 1359–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Craig W, Ebert S. Pharmacodynamic activities of RP 59500 in an animal infection model. Presented at the 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1993 Oct 17–20; New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Fantin B, Leclercq R, Merle Y, et al. Critical influence of resistance to streptogramin B-type antibiotics on activity of RP 59500 (quinupristin-dalfopristin) in experimental endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 400–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Aeschlimann JR, Rybak MJ. Pharmacodynamic analysis of the activity of quinupristin-dalfopristin against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium with differing MBCs via time-killcurve and postantibiotic effect methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 2188–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Dresser LD, Rybak MJ. The pharmacologic and bacteriologic properties of oxazolidinones, a new class of synthetic antimicrobials. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 456–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Perry CM, Jarvis B. Linezolid: a review of its use in the management of serious gram-positive infections. Drugs 2001; 61: 525–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Bain KT, Wittbrodt ET. Linezolid for the treatment of resistant gram-positive cocci. Ann Pharmacother 2001; 35: 566–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Andes D, Van OML, Craig WA. Pharmacodynamic activity of a new oxazolidinone, linezolid, in an animal infection model [abstract A-9]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24-26; San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Rybak MJ, Cappelletty DM, Moldovan T, et al. Comparative in vitro activities and postantibiotic effects of the oxazolidinone compounds eperezolid (PNU-100592) and linezolid (PNU-100766) versus vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 721–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Service Unit Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, and Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations