Background Pharmacists have been involved in promoting the proper and safe use of antimicrobial drugs in our institution since 2010. Setting Kochi Medical School Hospital, Japan. Objective To design and evaluate a plan of administration of meropenem (MEPM) based on its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, drug sensitivity, bacterial cultures, patient condition and renal function. Method A total of 547 patients admitted between April 2010 and March 2013 with serious infections who were successfully treated with MEPM for three or more days were analysed. Patients were initially divided into two groups according to renal function: group A consisted of patients with mild renal dysfunction [creatinine clearance (CLcr) > 50 mL/min] while group B consisted of patients with moderate to severe renal dysfunction (CLcr ≤ 50 mL/min). These groups were then subdivided into two groups according to the implementation of pharmacist intervention. Main outcome measures Daily dose, frequency of administration, dose interval, duration of therapy, adverse events and cost reduction. Results In the non-intervention subgroup within group A, the daily dose was 1,000 mg/day, the frequency of administration was 1.8 ± 0.6 times/day, and the duration of therapy was 9.4 ± 5.4 days. In the intervention subgroup within group A, the daily dose was 1,500 mg/day, the administration frequency was 2.5 ± 0.6 times/day, and the duration of therapy was 7.4 ± 3.7 days. Although the dose was higher (P < 0.05) and the duration of therapy was an average of 2 days shorter (P < 0.05) in the intervention subgroup, there was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the two subgroups. In group B, there were no significant differences between the two subgroups in the daily dose, administration frequency, or duration of therapy. However, liver dysfunction was significantly more common in the non-intervention subgroup than in the intervention subgroup (P < 0.05). The total reduction in drug cost in the intervention groups was estimated to be US$17,490 over 3 years. Conclusion Pharmacist intervention was associated with a shorter duration of therapy, lower drug costs, and decreased adverse effect. We believe that our intervention is beneficial in terms of effectiveness and safety, and supports proper antimicrobial use.
Costs Liver function Meropenem Pharmacokinetics Pharmacist intervention Renal function
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We like to thank the pharmacy staff who participated in this study.
The authors received no funding for this study.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Edwards JR, Turner PJ, Wannop C, Withnell ES, Grindey AJ, Nairn K. In vitro antibacterial activity of SM-7338, a carbapenem antibiotic with stability to dehydropeptidase I. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:215–22.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones RN, Aldridge KE, Allen SD, Barry AL, Fuchs PC, Gerlach EH, Pfaller MA. Multicenter in vitro evaluation of SM-7338, a new carbapenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:562–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentochnik DE, Eliopoulos GM, Ferraro MJ, Moellering RC Jr. Comparative in vitro activity of SM-7338, a new carbapenem antimicrobial agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:1232–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumita Y, Inoue M, Mitsuhashi S. In vitro antibacterial activity and beta-lactamase stability of the new carbapenem SM-7338. Eur Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;8:908–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuji A, Kobayashi I, Oguri T, Inoue M, Yabuuchi E, Goto S. An epidemiological study of the susceptibility and frequency of multiple-drug-resistant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated at medical institutes nationwide in Japan. J Infect Chemother. 2005;11:64–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumita Y, Tada E, Nouda H, Okuda T, Fukasawa M. Mode of action of meropenem, a new carbapenem antibiotic. Chemotherapy. 1992;40:90–102.Google Scholar
Nakamura H, Fukui T, Katsu M, Torikai K, Tomii M, Kawai K. Bacteriological and clinical studies on meropenem. Chemotherapy. 1992;40:312–25.Google Scholar
The Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine Sepsis Registry Committee. The Japanese Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis. J Jpn Soc Intensive Care Med. 2013;20:124–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikamo H. Optimizing meropenem therapy based on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) for severe infectious disease. Antibiot Chemother. 2005;21:405–13.Google Scholar
Mitsuo K. Attempt of host disease state levelling. Basic concept and clinical application. Jpn J Antibiot. 1998;51:532–4.Google Scholar
Noda K, Ueda A, Kuronuma H, Iwai S, Ito K, Saitoh Y, et al. Long-term monitoring and analysis for changing of selectivity and consumption of antimicrobial drugs estimated with AUD in our hospital I. Jpn J Environ Infect. 2009;24:332–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chimata M, Nagase M, Suzuki Y, Shimomura M, Kakuta S. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in patients with various degrees of renal function, including patients with end-stage renal disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993;37:229–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takikawa H, Onji M. A proposal of the diagnostic scale of drug induced liver injury. Hepatol Res. 2005;32:250–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C, Warnock DG, et al. Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2007;11:1–8.Google Scholar
Ogasahara Y, Ohno K, Harino T, Funahara H, Gotou C, Nagasaki N, et al. Promotion of correct use of antibiotics utilizing the antibiotics PK/PD check sheet by clinical pharmacists. Jpn J Environ Infect. 2008;23:117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linden P. Safety profile of meropenem: an updated review of over 6000 patients treated with meropenem. Drug Saf. 2007;30:657–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drusano GL. Prevention of resistance: a goal for dose selection for antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:S42–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigh WA. The role of pharmacodynamics in effective treatment of community-acquired pathogens. Adv Stud Med. 2002;2:126–34.Google Scholar
Shimada J, Hori S, Kanemitsu K, Shoji Y, Nakashio S, Yanagawa A. A comparative study on the convulsant activity of carbapenems and beta-lactams. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1992;18:377–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Calandra G, Lydick E, Carrigan J, Weiss L, Guess H. Factors predisposing to seizures in seriously ill, infected patients receiving antibiotics: experience with imipenem/cilastatin. Am J Med. 1988;84:911–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrby SR, Newell PA, Faulkner KL, Lesky W. Safety profile of meropenem: international clinical experience based on the first 3125 patients treated with Meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995;36(Suppl A):207–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy A, Fillastre JP, Borsa-Lebas F, Etienne I, Humbert G. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem (ICI 194,660) and its metabolite (ICI 213,689) in healthy subjects and in patients with renal impairment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:2794–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy A, Fillastre JP, Etienne I, Borsa-Lebas F, Humbert G. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in subjects with renal insufficiency. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;42:535–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar