Association between increased mortality rate and antibiotic dose adjustment in intensive care unit patients with renal impairment
Adjusting the antibiotic dose based on an estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) may result in subdosing, which may actually be significantly more problematic for intensive care unit (ICU) patients than not adjusting the dose. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of antibiotic dose adjustment in ICU patients with renal impairment.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients admitted to an ICU of a Brazilian hospital from January 2014 to December 2015. The eGFR was determined using Cockcroft–Gault and Modified Diet in Renal Disease equations for each day of hospitalization. Treatment failure was defined based on the clinical, laboratory, and radiological criteria.
A total of 126 patients were assessed to meet the inclusion criteria and subsequently enrolled in the study (19.9% of patients admitted to the ICU during the study period). Of the 168 opportunities for dose adjustment, 99 (58.9%) adjustments were made. The mean eGFR in the group with dose adjustment was lower than that in the group without dose adjustment (38.5 vs. 40.7 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). The treatment failure rate among patients with dose adjustment and those treated with the usual dose was 59.3 and 38.9%, respectively (p = 0.023), and the mortality rates in the respective groups were 74.1 and 55.5% (p = 0.033). An association between dose adjustment and treatment failure/mortality rates was also observed in the multivariate analysis including the prognostic score.
In ICU patients with renal impairment, adjustments in antibiotic dose based on eGFR, significantly increased the risk of treatment failure and death.
KeywordsAnti-infective agents Renal insufficiency Intensive care units Mortality
MS Camargo was responsible for the study design, data analysis, and manuscript writing. S Mistro and MG Oliveira were responsible for the manuscript writing and data analysis. LC Passos supervised the study and was responsible for writing the manuscript.
No funding was received.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Multidisciplinary Institute of Health, Federal University of Bahia, Vitória da Conquista, Brazil, with number (CAAE): 52721616.6.0000.5556.
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- 4.Jager NG, van Hest RM, Lipman J, Taccone FS, Roberts JA (2016) Therapeutic drug monitoring of anti-infective agents in critically ill patients. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 9 (7):961-979. https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2016.1172209
- 6.Mouton JW, Muller AE, Canton R, Giske CG, Kahlmeter G, Turnidge J (2018) MIC-based dose adjustment: facts and fables. J Antimicrob Chemother 73(3):564–568. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx427
- 7.van Hasselt JG, Schellens JH, Beijnen JH, Huitema AD (2014) Design of informative renal impairment studies: evaluation of the impact of design stratification on bias, precision and dose adjustment error. Investig New Drugs 32(5):913–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-014-0103-8
- 10.Surana S, Kumar N, Vasudeva A, Shaikh G, Jhaveri KD, Shah H, Malieckal D, Fogel J, Sidhu G, Rubinstein S (2017) Awareness and knowledge among internal medicine house-staff for dose adjustment of commonly used medications in patients with CKD. BMC Nephrol 18(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-017-0443-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Delanaye P, Guerber F, Scheen A, Ellam T, Bouquegneau A, Guergour D, Mariat C, Pottel H (2017) Discrepancies between the Cockcroft-gault and chronic kidney disease epidemiology (CKD-EPI) equations: implications for refining drug dosage adjustment strategies. Clin Pharmacokinet 56(2):193–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-016-0434-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S, Kusek JW, Van Lente F, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology C (2006) Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 145(4):247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Truven Health Analytics, Inc. (2016) Micromedex® 2.0. Truven Health Analytics, Inc. Greenwood Village http://www.micromedexsolutions.com
- 21.American Pharmacists Association (2015). Drug information handbook, 24th edn. Lexi-Comp, Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
- 22.Ismail B, Shafei MN, Harun A, Ali S, Omar M, Deris ZZ (2017) Predictors of polymyxin B treatment failure in Gram-negative healthcare-associated infections among critically ill patients. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2017.03.007
- 26.Zander J, Dobbeler G, Nagel D, Maier B, Scharf C, Huseyn-Zada M, Jung J, Frey L, Vogeser M, Zoller M (2016) Piperacillin concentration in relation to therapeutic range in critically ill patients—a prospective observational study. Crit Care 20:79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1255-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Eppenga WL, Kramers C, Derijks HJ, Wensing M, Wetzels JF, De Smet PA (2016) Drug therapy management in patients with renal impairment: how to use creatinine-based formulas in clinical practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 72(12):1433–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2113-2
- 29.Charmillon A, Novy E, Agrinier N, Leone M, Kimmoun A, Levy B, Demore B, Dellamonica J, Pulcini C (2016) The ANTIBIOPERF study: a nationwide cross-sectional survey about practices for beta-lactam administration and therapeutic drug monitoring among critically ill patients in France. Clin Microbiol Infect 22(7):625–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2016.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar