Compliance lebertransplantierter Patienten mit dem Immunsuppressivum Tacrolimus bei 2x täglicher im Vergleich zu 1x täglicher Einnahme

Compliance lebertransplantierter Patienten mit der immunsuppressiven Therapie ist unerlässlich für den lang-fristigen Erfolg der Lebertransplantation. Aus Non-Compliance mit der immunsuppressiven Therapie können Abstoßungsreaktionen, Organverlust oder sogar Tod resultieren. Hauptziel der vorliegenden Studie war die erstmalige Evaluation der Compliance bei Einnahme von Prograf® (zweimal tägliche Einnahme von Tacrolimus) im Vergleich zur Einnahme von Advagraf® (einmal tägliche Einnahme von Tacrolimus). Von Interesse war außerdem die Fragestellung, ob sich die Compliance bezüglich der immunsuppressiven Therapie mit dem Zeitabstand zur Transplantation verändert. rnDie Compliancemessung wurde offen mittels MEMS® (Aardex Ltd., Schweiz) durchgeführt, der Patient war also über die Compliancekontrolle informiert. Mittels MEMS® konnten Datum und Uhrzeit der Dosisentnahme dokumentiert und damit zuverlässig das gesamte Compliancemuster über im Durchschnitt 176 Tage mit der zweimal täglichen Einnahme und 188 Tage mit der einmal täglichen Einnahme pro Patient erfasst werden. 65 Patienten mit dem Basisimmunsuppressivum Prograf® wurden in die prospektive, nicht-interventionelle Studie eingeschlossen und nach Per Protokoll-Analyse konnten die Daten von 63 in Mainz lebertransplantierten Patienten ausgewertet werden (Prograf®: Gruppe 1: 15 Patienten (Pat.), Gruppe 2: 23 Pat., Gruppe 3: 22 Pat., Drop-outs: 3 Pat.; Advagraf®: Gruppe 1: 16 Pat., Gruppe 2: 23 Pat., Gruppe 3: 23 Pat., Drop-outs: 1 Pat.). Die Dosing Compliance (DC), definiert als Prozent der Tage, an denen der MEMS®-Behälter korrekt geöffnet und die Dosis höchstwahrscheinlich korrekt eingenommen wurde, war der primäre Zielparameter. Weitere Methoden der Compliancemessung, wie der Pill Count, mehrere Fragebögen (Selbsteinschätzung, Patientenwissen-, Morisky-, MESI-, HADS-, SF-36- und Patientenzufriedenheit-Fragebogen) sowie die Blutspiegelmessung wurden eingesetzt, um die Compliance der Patienten umfassend charakterisieren zu können. rnDer Median der DC mit der zweimal täglichen Einnahme betrug 97% bei Pat. > 6 m.p.t. < 2 y.p.t., 97% bei Pat. > 2 y.p.t. < 5 y.p.t. und 98% bei Pat. > 5 y.p.t. (p=0,931; Kruskal-Wallis-Test). Der Median der DC von Tacroli-mus bei einmal täglicher Einnahme (Advagraf®) betrug 99% bei Pat. > 6 m.p.t. < 2 y.p.t., 98% bei Pat. > 2 y.p.t. < 5 y.p.t. und 97% bei Pat. > 5 y.p.t. (p=0,158; Kruskal-Wallis-Test). Insgesamt zeigten die Patienten während des gesamten Beobachtungszeitraums von 12 Monaten eine gute Compliance für die Einnahme ihres Immun-suppressivums. Die Timing Compliance (TiC)-raten lagen auf einem niedrigeren Niveau als die Dosing- und Taking Compliance (TC)-raten. Die Complianceraten der drei Subgruppen unterschieden sich nicht signifikant. Die Patienten mit dem geringsten Abstand zur Transplantation zeigten bei beinahe allen Messmethoden die höchste Compliance im Gegensatz zur etwas geringeren Compliance der Patienten mit größerem Abstand zur Transplantation. Die während der Advagraf®-Phase mittels MEMS® gemessenen DC-, TC- und TiC-raten fielen höher aus als bei Einnahme von Prograf® (p(DC)=0,003; p(TC)=0,077; p(TiC)=0,003; Wilcoxon Vorzeichen-Rang-Test). Dieses Ergebnis untermauert die in anderen Indikationen gefundene Complianceverbesserung durch die einmal tägliche Arzneimittelgabe im Vergleich zur zweimal täglichen Gabe. Die Auswertung der Drug Holidays ergab für die Advagraf®-Phase hingegen niedrigere Complianceraten als für die Prograf®-Phase. Dieses Ergebnis ist auf die Definition des Drug Holidays (keine Arzneimitteleinnahme über 48 h) zurück zu führen. Die Chance Advagraf® einmal pro Tag zu vergessen ist doppelt so hoch, als Prograf® dreimal aufeinander fol-gend zu vergessen. Mit einer verhältnismäßigeren Definition von Drug Holidays (Einnahmepause von 72 Stun-den bei einmal täglicher Einnahme von Advagraf® entsprechend drei ausgelassenen Dosen von Prograf®) ist die Compliancerate 81%. Die Ergebnisse des Pill Counts waren sowohl bei Einnahme von Prograf® als auch von Advagraf® mit der jeweils gemessenen TC vergleichbar, was die Zuverlässigkeit der Messergebnisse bes-tätigt. rnDie zusätzlich eingesetzten Methoden verifizierten das Ergebnis der höheren Compliance mit der einmal tägli-chen Einnahme. Die während der Advagraf®-Phase beantworteten Fragebögen zeigten einen Trend zu besserer Compliance und Lebensqualität. Lediglich die Ergebnisse des MESI-Fragebogens und der Blutspiegelmessungen wichen sowohl während der Prograf®- als auch während der Advagraf®-Phase stark von den Ergebnis-sen der anderen Methoden ab. rnUnter Einbeziehung aller mittels MEMS® und Pill Count objektiv gemessenen Complianceparameter konnten während der Prograf®-Einnahme 54 von 60 Pat. (90%) und während der Advagraf®-Phase 59 von 62 Pat. (95%) als compliant eingestuft werden. Aufgrund subjektiver Compliancemessungen waren 49 von 58 Pat. (84%) während der Prograf®- und 54 von 59 Pat. (92%) während der Advagraf®-Phase als compliant einzustufen. Es wurde beobachtet, dass die zeitlich korrekte Einnahme der Morgendosis einfacher und bei Einmalgabe zu bevorzugen ist. Die wochentagsbezogene Auswertung ergab erwartungsgemäß, dass am Wochenende (Samstag und Sonntag) am häufigsten Dosen ausgelassen wurden. rnDie Umstellung von Prograf® auf Advagraf® stellte kein Problem dar. Beinahe alle Patienten waren dankbar und zufrieden mit der Reduzierung der Dosierungsfrequenz und der größeren Unabhängigkeit durch die entfallene abendliche Einnahme. Der positive Einfluss der geringeren Dosierungshäufigkeit auf die Langzeitcompliance der Patienten, ist ein hinreichender Grund die Entwicklung von Formulierungen zur einmal täglichen Ein-nahme für weitere Immunsuppressiva zu fordern. Insbesondere bei den häufig eingesetzten Kombinationstherapien von Immunsuppressiva würde der Effekt der Complianceverbesserung noch verstärkt werden, wenn alle eingesetzten Immunsuppressiva zur einmal täglichen Gabe geeignet wären.

Low efficacy of an ultra-short term, once-daily dose triple therapy with omeprazole, azithromycin, and secnidazole for Helicobacter pylori eradication in peptic ulcer

PURPOSE: To determine the eradication rate of an ultra-short treatment schedule for Helicobacter pylori infection in a population with peptic ulcers, using omeprazole, secnidazole, and azithromycin in a once-daily dose for 3 days. METHODS: Thirty patients with peptic ulcer diagnosed by upper endoscopy and for Helicobacter pylori infection by rapid urease test and histologic examination received omeprazole 40 mg, secnidazole 1000 mg, and azithromycin 500 mg, administered once daily for 3 days. A follow-up exam was performed 12 weeks after the end of the treatment. Patients who were negative for Helicobacter pylori infection by rapid urease test and histologic examination were considered cured. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly female, and the mean age was 50 years. Duodenal peptic ulcer was found in 73% of the patients. Eradication was achieved in 9 of the 28 (32%) patients as determined from the follow-up endoscopic exam. The eradication rate by intention to treat was 30%. Side effects were present in 3% of the patients, and compliance to treatment was total. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the low rate of side effects and good compliance, the eradication index was low. A possible drawback of this therapy is that it reduces the efficacy of macrolide and nitroimidazole compounds in subsequent treatments.

Intermittent target inhibition with dasatinib 100 mg once daily preserves efficacy and improves tolerability in imatinib-resistant and -intolerant chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia

Purpose Dasatinib is a BCR-ABL inhibitor, 325-fold more potent than imatinib against unmutated BCR-ABL in vitro. Phase II studies have demonstrated efficacy and safety with dasatinib 70 mg twice daily in chronic-phase (CP) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) after imatinib treatment failure. In phase I, responses occurred with once-daily administration despite only intermittent BCR-ABL inhibition. Once-daily treatment resulted in less toxicity, suggesting that toxicity results from continuous inhibition of unintended targets. Here, a dose-and schedule-optimization study is reported. Patients and Methods In this open-label phase III trial, 670 patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant CP-CML were randomly assigned 1: 1: 1: 1 between four dasatinib treatment groups: 100 mg once daily, 50 mg twice daily, 140 mg once daily, or 70 mg twice daily. Results With minimum follow-up of 6 months (median treatment duration, 8 months; range, = 1 to 15 months), marked and comparable hematologic (complete, 86% to 92%) and cytogenetic (major, 54% to 59%; complete, 41% to 45%) response rates were observed across the four groups. Time to and duration of cytogenetic response were similar, as was progression-free survival (8% to 11% of patients experienced disease progression or died). Compared with the approved 70-mg twice-daily regimen, dasatinib 100 mg once daily resulted in significantly lower rates of pleural effusion (all grades, 7% v 16%; P = .024) and grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (22% v 37%; P = .004), and fewer patients required dose interruption (51% v 68%), reduction (30% v 55%), or discontinuation (16% v 23%). Conclusion Dasatinib 100 mg once daily retains the efficacy of 70 mg twice daily with less toxicity. Intermittent target inhibition with tyrosine kinase inhibitors may preserve efficacy and reduce adverse events.

The pharmacokinetics of once-daily dosing of ceftriaxone in critically ill patients

The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of the normal recommended dose of ceftriaxone in critically ill patients and to establish whether the current daily dosing recommendation maintains plasma concentrations adequate for antibacterial efficacy. Ceftriaxone at a recommended dose of 2 g iv was administered od to 12 critically ill patients with severe sepsis and normal serum creatinine concentrations. Blood samples were taken at predetermined intervals over the first 24 h and on day 3 for measurement of ceftriaxone concentrations. There was wide variability in drug disposition, explained by the presence of variable renal function and identified by the measurement of creatinine clearance. In nine patients with normal renal function, there was a high level of creatinine clearance(mean +/- S.D., 41 +/- 12 mL/min) and volume of distribution (20 +/- 3.3 L), which resulted in an elimination half-life of 6.4 +/- 1.1 h. In comparison with normal subjects, ceftriaxone clearance was increased 100%, volume of distribution increased 90% and the elimination half-life was similar. Three patients had substantially suboptimal plasma ceftriaxone concentrations. We confirm previous findings that ceftriaxone clearance in critically ill patients correlates with renal clearance by glomerular filtration. The elimination half-life is prolonged (21.4 +/- 9.8 h) in critically ill patients with renal failure when compared with previously published data in non-critically ill patients with renal failure. We conclude that in critically ill patients with normal renal function, inadequate plasma concentrations may result following od bolus dosing of ceftriaxone. Drug accumulation may occur in critically ill patients with renal failure.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of once-daily raltegravir and atazanavir in healthy volunteers.

Atazanavir inhibits UDP-glucuronyl-transferase-1A1 (UGT1A1), which metabolizes raltegravir, but the magnitude of steady-state inhibition and role of the UGT1A1 genotype are unknown. Sufficient inhibition could lead to reduced-dose and -cost raltegravir regimens. Nineteen healthy volunteers, age 24 to 51 years, took raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (arm A) and 400 mg plus atazanavir 400 mg once daily (arm B), separated by ?3 days, in a crossover design. After 1 week on each regimen, raltegravir and raltegravir-glucuronide plasma and urine concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in multiple samples obtained over 12 h (arm A) or 24 h (arm B) and analyzed by noncompartmental methods. UGT1A1 promoter variants were detected with a commercially available kit and published primers. The primary outcome was the ratio of plasma raltegravir C(tau), or concentration at the end of the dosing interval, for arm B (24 h) versus arm A (12 h). The arm B-to-arm A geometric mean ratios (95% confidence interval, P value) for plasma raltegravir C(tau), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), and raltegravir-glucuronide/raltegravir AUC(0-12) were 0.38 (0.22 to 0.65, 0.001), 1.32 (0.62 to 2.81, 0.45), and 0.47 (0.38 to 0.59, <0.001), respectively. Nine volunteers were heterozygous and one was homozygous for a UGT1A1 reduction-of-function allele, but these were not associated with metabolite formation. Although atazanavir significantly reduced the formation of the glucuronide metabolite, its steady-state boosting of plasma raltegravir did not render the C(tau) with a once-daily raltegravir dose of 400 mg similar to the C(tau) with the standard twice-daily dose. UGT1A1 promoter variants did not significantly influence this interaction.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic of once-daily boosted saquinavir (1500/100 mg) together with 2 nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in real life: a multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND. Ritonavir-boosted saquinavir (SQVr) is nowadays regarded as an alternative antiretroviral drug probably due to several drawbacks, such as its high pill burden, twice daily dosing and the requirement of 200 mg ritonavir when given at the current standard 1000/100 mg bid dosing. Several once-daily SQVr dosing schemes have been studied with the 200 mg SQV old formulations, trying to overcome some of these disadvantages. SQV 500 mg strength tablets became available at the end of 2005, thus facilitating a once-daily regimen with fewer pills, although there is very limited experience with this formulation yet. METHODS. Prospective, multicentre study in which efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of a regimen of once-daily SQVr 1500/100 mg plus 2 NRTIs were evaluated under routine clinical care conditions in either antiretroviral-naïve patients or in those with no previous history of antiretroviral treatments and/or genotypic resistance tests suggesting SQV resistance. Plasma SQV trough levels were measured by HPLV-UV. RESULTS. Five hundred and fourteen caucasian patients were included (47.2% coinfected with hepatitis C and/or B virus; 7.8% with cirrhosis). Efficacy at 52 weeks (plasma RNA-HIV <50 copies/ml) was 67.7% (CI95: 63.6 - 71.7%) by intention-to-treat, and 92.2% (CI95: 89.8 - 94.6%) by on-treatment analysis. The reasons for failure were: dropout or loss to follow-up (18.4%), virological failure (7.8%), adverse events (3.1%), and other reasons (4.6%). The high rate of dropout may be explained by an enrollment and follow-up under routine clinical care condition, and a population with a significant number of drug users. The median SQV Cmin (n = 49) was 295 ng/ml (range, 53-2172). The only variable associated with virological failure in the multivariate analysis was adherence (OR: 3.36; CI95, 1.51-7.46, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS. Our results suggests that SQVr (1500/100 mg) once-daily plus 2 NRTIs is an effective regimen, without severe clinical adverse events or hepatotoxicity, scarce lipid changes, and no interactions with methadone. All these factors and its once-daily administration suggest this regimen as an appropriate option in patients with no SQV resistance-associated mutations.

Once-daily dolutegravir is superior to once-daily darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve HIV-1-positive individuals: 96 week results from FLAMINGO.

INTRODUCTION: Dolutegravir (DTG) 50 mg once daily was superior to darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800 mg/100 mg once daily through Week 48, with 90% vs. 83% of participants achieving HIV RNA 50 c/mL (p=0.025) [1]. We present data through Week 96. MATERIAL AND METHODS: FLAMINGO is a multicentre, randomized, open-label, Phase IIIb non-inferiority study, in which HIV-1-positive ART-naïve adults with HIV-1 RNA≥1000 c/mL and no evidence of viral resistance were randomized 1:1 to receive DTG or DRV/r, with investigator-selected backbone NRTIs (TDF/FTC or ABC/3TC). Participants were stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤100K c/mL) and NRTI backbone. RESULTS: A total of 484 adults were randomized and treated; 25% had baseline HIV RNA 100K c/mL. At Week 96, the proportion of participants with HIV RNA 50 c/mL was 80% in the DTG arm vs. 68% in the DRV/r arm (adjusted difference 12.4%; 95% CI 4.7, 20.2%; p=0.002). Secondary analyses supported primary results: per-protocol [(DTG 83% vs. DRV/r 70%), 95% CI 12.9 (5.3, 20.6)] and treatment-related discontinuation = failure [(98% vs. 95%), 95% CI 3.2 (-0.3, 6.7)]. Overall virologic non-response (DTG 8%; DRV/r 12%) and non-response due to other reasons (DTG 12%; DRV/r 21%) occurred less frequently on DTG. As at Week 48, the difference between arms was most pronounced in participants with high baseline viral load (82% vs. 52% response through Week 96) and in the TDF/FTC stratum (79% vs. 64%); consistent responses were seen in the ABC/3TC stratum (82% vs. 75%). Six participants (DTG 2, none post-Week 48; DRV/r 4, two post-Week 48) experienced protocol-defined virologic failure (PDVF; confirmed viral load 200 c/mL on or after Week 24); none had treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs. Most frequent drug-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, nausea and headache, with diarrhoea significantly more common on DRV/r (24%) than DTG (10%). Significantly more participants had Grade 2 fasting LDL toxicities on DRV/r (22%) vs. DTG (7%), p<0.001; mean changes in creatinine for DTG (~0.18 mg/dL) observed at Week 2 were stable through Week 96. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily DTG was superior to once-daily DRV/r in treatment-naïve HIV-1-positive individuals, with no evidence of emergent resistance to DTG in virologic failure and relatively similar safety profiles for DTG and DRV/r through 96 Weeks.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily aclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: The long-term efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide, a novel, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, were investigated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: In two double-blind, 52-week studies, ACCLAIM/COPD I (n = 843) and II (n = 804), patients were randomised to inhaled aclidinium 200 μg or placebo once-daily. Patients were required to have a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤70% and FEV1 <80% of the predicted value. The primary endpoint was trough FEV1 at 12 and 28 weeks. Secondary endpoints were health status measured by St George"s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and time to first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation. Results: At 12 and 28 weeks, aclidinium improved trough FEV1 versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (by 61 and 67 mL; both p < 0.001) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (by 63 and 59 mL; both p < 0.001). More patients had a SGRQ improvement ≥4 units at 52 weeks with aclidinium versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (48.1% versus 39.5%; p = 0.025) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (39.0% versus 32.8%; p = 0.074). The time to first exacerbation was significantly delayed by aclidinium in ACCLAIM/COPD II (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.01), but not ACCLAIM/COPD I (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; p = 0.9). Adverse events were minor in both studies. Conclusion: Aclidinium is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00363896 ACCLAIM/COPD I) and NCT00358436 (ACCLAIM/COPD II).

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks. METHODS: FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 [82%] vs 32/61 [52%], homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 [13%] vs 34/242 [14%]), and headache (17/242 [7%] vs 12/242 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.

An open-label, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dose of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal lower limb deep-vein thrombosis

Background: Treatment of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) with a once-daily regimen of enoxaparin, rather than a continuous infusion of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is more convenient and allows for home care in some patients. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of patients with proximal lower limb DVT. Methods: 201 patients with proximal lower limb DVT from 13 centers in Brazil were randomized in an open manner to receive either enoxaparin [1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) OD] or intravenous (i.v.) UFH (adjusted to aPTT 1.5-2.5 times control) for 5-10 days. All patients also received warfarin (INR 2-3) for at least 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint Was recurrent DVT (confirmed by venography or ultrasonography), and safety endpoints included bleeding and serious adverse events. The rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) was also collected. Hospitalization was at the physician's discretion. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between groups. The duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter with enoxaparin than with UFH (3 versus 7 days). In addition, 36% of patients receiving enoxaparin did not need to be hospitalized, whereas all of the patients receiving UFH were! hospitalized. The treatment duration was slightly longer with enoxaparin (8 versus 7 days). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the rate of recurrent DVT with enoxaparin versus UFH, and similar safety. Conclusions: A once-daily regimen of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous is at least as effective and safe as conventional treatment with a continuous intravenous infusion of UFH. However, the once daily enoxaparin regimen is easier to administer (subcutaneous versus intravenous), does not require aPTT monitoring, and leads to both a reduced number of hospital admissions and an average 4-day-shorter hospital stay. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A randomized comparison of the safety and efficacy of once-daily gentamicin or thrice-daily gentamicin in combination with ticarcillin-clavulanate

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of once-a-day compared with three-times-a-day gentamicin in patients with serious infections who had protocol-determined peak serum aminoglycoside concentrations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 249 hospitalized patients with suspected or proven serious infections were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to gentamicin given three times a day with ticarcillin-clavulanate (TC), gentamicin once a day with TC, or ticarcillin-clavulanate (TC) alone. The gentamicin once-a-day dosage for patients with estimated creatinine clearance values of > or =80 mL/min was 5.1 mg/kg. With lower creatinine clearance estimates, the mg/kg dosage of gentamicin was decreased, and the dosage intervals (once daily or three times a day) were maintained. Evaluability required documentation of achievement of protocol-defined peak serum gentamicin levels. RESULTS: Of the total 175 evaluable patients, there were no significant differences found between treatment regimens with respect to clinical or microbiologic efficacy. Bedside audiometry proved impractical due to the frequency of altered mental state in ill patients. Based on the traditional increase in serum creatinine values from baseline values, no differences in renal toxicity between the treatment groups was identified. When changes in renal function were reanalyzed based on maintaining, as opposed to worsening, of renal function, preservation of renal function was better in the gentamicin once-a-day patients as opposed to the gentamicin three-times-a-day patients, P <0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Gentamicin once a day plus TC, gentamicin three times a day plus TC, and TC alone had similar effects in seriously ill hospitalized patients. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was similar in the three treatment groups. Using a nonvalidated post-hoc analysis, renal function was better preserved in gentamicin once-a-day + TC and TC-only patients as opposed to gentamicin three-times-a-day + TC.

Once daily dosing of netilmicin in neonatal and pediatric intensive care

OBJECTIVE: To examine a once daily dosing regimen of netilmicin in critically ill neonates and children. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open, prospective study on 81 antibiotic courses in 77 critically ill neonates and children, hospitalized in a multidisciplinary pediatric/neonatal intensive care unit. For combined empiric therapy (aminoglycoside and beta-lactam), netilmicin was given intravenously over 5 min once every 24 h. The dose ranged from 3.5-6 mg/kg, mainly depending upon gestational and postnatal age. Peak levels were determined by immunoassay 30 min after the second dose and trough levels 1 h before the third and fifth dose or after adaptation of dosing. RESULTS: All peak levels (n = 28) were clearly above 12 mumol/l (mean 22, range 13-41 mumol/l). Eighty-nine trough levels were within desired limits (< 4 mumol/l) and 11 (11%) above 4 mumol/l, mostly in conjunction with impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal peak and trough levels of netilmicin can be achieved by once daily dosing, adapted to gestational/postnatal age and renal function.