A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of meropenem after intravenous administration by injection over 2, 3 and 5 minutes
- 90 Downloads
The pharmacokinetics of meropenem were determined in 9 healthy volunteers after the administration of 1 g doses by injection over 2, 3 or 5 min. Peak plasma concentrations were not significantly different across the three rates of administration and, due to the finite time required for complete mixing of the blood in the central compartment, did not always occur at the end of the injection. Overall exposure to meropenem was unchanged by the more rapid rates of administration. Plasma clearance terminal half-life and volume of distribution were virtually unchanged. Within 10 min after the start of the injection, the plasma concentrations from all three injections were very similar indicating that dosing over 2, 3 or 5 min would result in similar antimicrobial cover and, therefore, comparable efficacy. Comparison of the data derived from the three injections indicated that rapid administration of meropenem did not appreciably alter its disposition pharmacokinetics. Tolerability of meropenem was unchanged with the more rapid administration rate.
KeywordsMeropenem pharmacokinetics carbapenem injection
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fukasawa M., Sumita Y., Harabe E.T., Tanio T., Nouda H., Kohzuki T. (1992): Stability of meropenem and the effect of 1β-methyl substitution on its stability in the presence of renal dehydropeptidase-I. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 36, 1577–1579.Google Scholar
- 2.Wiseman L.R., Wagstaff A.J., Brogden R.N., Bryson H.M. (1995): Meropenem. A Review of its antibacterial activity, Pharmacokinet Prop Clin Efficacy Drugs, 50, 73–101.Google Scholar
- 3.Edwards J.R. (1995): A microbiological overview. J. Antimicrob. Chemother., 6, Suppl A, 1–17.Google Scholar
- 14.Bryne S., Maddison J., Connor P. et al. (1995): Clinical evaluation of meropenem versus ceftazidime for the treatment ofPseudomonas spp. infections, in cystic fibrosis patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother., 36, Suppl. A, 135–143.Google Scholar