Current Fungal Infection Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 120–128 | Cite as

Antifungal Dose Adjustment in Renal and Hepatic Dysfunction: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations

Article

Abstract

Adjusting the dose of antifungal agents for renal and hepatic impairment can be challenging given that clinicians must rely on limited pharmacokinetic data to derive specific regimens. These pharmacokinetic studies are typically performed in a small number of patients without invasive fungal infection, and results are not often reported in concert with accepted pharmacodynamic indices. This article aims to review pertinent pharmacokinetic studies of antifungal drugs in patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction. The impact of novel continuous renal replacement therapy techniques on the pharmacokinetic disposition of antifungal agents will also be described where data are available. Subsequently, this review provides recommendations for antifungal drug dosing in patients with kidney or liver dysfunction after accounting for established or emerging pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships as they relate to antifungal drug efficacy in vivo.

Keywords

Renal replacement therapy Triazoles Echinocandins Antifungal drugs Dosage Kidney dysfunction Liver dysfunction 

References

Papers of particular interest and published recently have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, et al.: Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:408–415.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Pappas PG, Rotstein CMF, Betts RF, et al.: Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 2007, 45:883–893. Study investigators sought to include patients with organ dysfunction, and caspofungin doses were reduced for patients with a Child-Pugh score of 7 to 9. However, less than 4% of caspofungin recipients had hepatic impairment.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, et al.: Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:348–359. Prophylaxis with posaconazole in this large randomized clinical trial improved survival when compared with fluconazole or itraconazole. Patients with clinically significant renal or hepatic impairment were excluded.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry: pharmacokinetics in patients with impaired renal function—study design, data analysis, and impact on dosing and labeling. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM072127.pdf. Accessed January 2010.
  5. 5.
    United States Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry: pharmacokinetics in patients with impaired hepatic function: study design, data analysis, and impact on dosing and labeling. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm072123.pdf. Accessed January 2010.
  6. 6.
    Bergner R, Hoffmann M, Riedel KD, et al.: Fluconazole dosing in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVHF): need for a high daily dose of 800 mg. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006, 21:1019–1023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Fuhrmann V, Schenk P, Jaeger W, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of voriconazole during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007, 60:1085–1090. This is the largest pharmacokinetic analysis of voriconazole in critically ill, anuric patients undergoing CVVHDF.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Heintz BH, Matzke GR, Dager WE: Antimicrobial dosing concepts and recommendations for critically ill adult patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy or intermittent hemodialysis. Pharmacotherapy 2009, 29:562–577. This comprehensive, well-referenced review includes the most up-to-date information about dosing antifungal drugs in patients on various forms of CRRT.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andes D, van Ogtrop M: Characterization and quantitation of the pharmacodynamics of fluconazole in a neutropenic murine disseminated candidiasis infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999, 43:2116–2120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Baddley JW, Patel M, Bhavnani SM, et al.: Association of fluconazole pharmacodynamics with mortality in patients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008, 52:3022–3028. These investigators evaluated data from a prospective cohort of hospitalized patients with candidemia treated with fluconazole and reported increased all-cause mortality at 6 weeks in patients with a fluconazole fAUC 24 :MIC ratio less than 11.5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Pascual A, Calandra T, Bolay S, et al.: Voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with invasive mycoses improves efficacy and safety outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 2008, 46:201–211. This study suggests a correlation of voriconazole trough serum levels with clinical response and central nervous system toxicity.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith J, Safdar N, Knasinski V, et al.: Voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006, 50:1570–1572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leveque D, Nivoix Y, Jehl F, Herbrecht R: Clinical pharmacokinetics of voriconazole. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006, 27:274–284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Ghannoum MA, et al.: Wild-type MIC distribution and epidemiological cutoff values for Aspergillus fumigatus and three triazoles as determined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution methods. J Clin Microbiol 2009, 47:3142–3146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 48:503–535. These clinical practice guidelines offer drugs of choice for treating patients with invasive candidiasis. Specific dosing recommendations are given for patients with normal renal and hepatic function.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Sheehan DJ: Interpretive breakpoints for fluconazole and Candida revisited: a blueprint for the future of antifungal susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006, 19:435–447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berl T, Wilner KD, Gardner M, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 1995, 6:242–247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Walsh TJ, Anaissie EJ, Denning DW, et al.: Treatment of aspergillosis: clinical practice guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2008, 46:327–360. These clinical practice guidelines recommend voriconazole as the drug of choice for treating patients with invasive aspergillosis. Some dosing recommendations are given for patients with renal and hepatic impairment.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Abel S, Allan R, Gandelman K, et al.: Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerance of voriconazole in renally impaired subjects: two prospective, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group volunteer studies. Clin Drug Invest 2008, 28:409–420. This paper describes the accumulation of the cyclodextrin vehicle found in the intravenous formulation of voriconazole in patients with a CrCl of 30 to 50 mL/min.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    United States Food and Drug Administration: FDA Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee: Briefing document for voriconazole (oral and intravenous formulations). Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3792b2_01_Pfizer.pdf. Accessed January 2010.
  21. 21.
    • Stella VJ, He Q: Cyclodextrins. Toxicol Pathol 2008, 36:30–42. This is a comprehensive review of the utility and toxicology profile of cyclodextrins currently used in various drug formulations, including the SBECD vehicle used in intravenous voriconazole.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oude Lashof AML, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M, et al.: Safety and tolerability of voriconazole compared to amphotericin B followed by fluconazole in patients with candidaemia and baseline renal insufficiency [Abstract 1733_475]. Presented at the 17th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Munich, Germany; March 31–April 4, 2007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Alvarez-Lerma F, Allepuz-Pallau A, Garcia MP, et al.: Impact of intravenous administration of voriconazole in critically ill patients with impaired renal function. J Chemother 2008, 20:93–100. This retrospective study evaluated the impact of intravenous voriconazole on patients’ renal and hepatic function.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    von Mach MA, Burhenne J, Weilemann LS: Accumulation of the solvent vehicle sulphobutylether beta cyclodextrin sodium in critically ill patients treated with intravenous voriconazole under renal replacement. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2006, 6:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohr JF, Finkel KW, Rex JH, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of intravenous itraconazole in stable hemodialysis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004, 48:3151–3153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel JH, Churchwell MD, Seroogy JD, et al.: Telavancin and hydroxy propyl-beta-cyclodextrin clearance during continuous renal replacement therapy: an in vitro study. Int J Artif Organs 2009, 32:745–751.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Courtney R, Sansone A, Smith W, et al.: Posaconazole pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability in subjects with varying degrees of chronic renal disease. J Clin Pharmacol 2005, 45:185–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruhnke M, Yeates RA, Pfaff G, et al.: Single-dose pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995, 35:641–647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan KK, Wood N, Weil A: Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of voriconazole in chronic hepatic impairment [abstract A-16]. Presented at the 41st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Chicago, IL; December 16–19, 2001.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weiler S, Zoller H, Graziadei I, et al.: Altered pharmacokinetics of voriconazole in a patient with liver cirrhosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007, 51:3459–3460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moton A, Krishna G, Ma L, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of a single dose of the antifungal posaconazole as oral suspension in subjects with hepatic impairment. Curr Med Res Opin 2010, 26:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Louie A, Deziel M, Liu W, et al.: Pharmacodynamics of caspofungin in a murine model of systemic candidiasis: importance of persistence of caspofungin in tissues to understanding drug activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005, 49:5058–5068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, et al.: In vivo pharmacodynamic characterization of anidulafungin in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008, 52:539–550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andes DR, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, et al.: In vivo pharmacodynamic target investigation for micafungin against Candida albicans and C. glabrata in a neutropenic murine candidiasis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008, 52:3497–3503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wiederhold NP, Kontoyiannis DP, Chi J, et al.: Pharmacodynamics of caspofungin in a murine model of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: evidence of concentration-dependent activity. J Infect Dis 2004, 190:1464–1471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pfaller MA, Boyken L, Hollis RJ, et al.: Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for the echinocandins and Candida spp. J Clin Microbiology 2010, 48:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pfaller MA, Boyken L, Hollis RJ, et al.: In vitro susceptibility of clinical isolates of Aspergillus spp. to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin: a head-to-head comparison using the CLSI M38-A2 broth microdilution method. J Clin Microbiol 2009, 47:3323–3325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hebert MF, Smith HE, Marbury TC, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of micafungin in healthy volunteers, volunteers with moderate liver disease, and volunteers with renal dysfunction. J Clin Pharmacol 2005, 45:1145–1152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    •• Dowell JA, Stogniew M, Krause D, Damle B: Anidulafungin does not require dosage adjustment in subjects with varying degrees of hepatic or renal impairment. J Clin Pharmcol 2007, 47:461–470. This pharmacokinetic study confirmed previous echinocandin studies that suggested no dosage adjustment in patients with impaired renal or hepatic function. Again, the AUC of anidulafungin was decreased in patients with impaired hepatic function.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burkhardt O, Kaever V, Burhenne H, Kielstein JT: Extended daily dialysis does not affect the pharmacokinetics of anidulafungin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009, 34:282–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hirata K, Aoyama T, Matsumo Y, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of antifungal agent micafungin in critically ill patients receiving continuous hemodialysis filtration. Yakugaku Zasshi 2007, 127:897–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    United States Food and Drug Administration: Antiviral Drug Products Advisory Committee: Background document for Cancidas (caspofungin acetate for intravenous injection). Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3676b1_01.pdf. Accessed January 2010.
  43. 43.
    Stone JA, Holland SD, Wickersham PJ, et al.: Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of caspofungin in healthy men. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002, 46:739–745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    •• Mistry GC, Migoya E, Deutsch PJ, et al.: Single- and multiple-dose administration of caspofungin in patients with hepatic insufficiency: implications for safety and dosing recommendations. J Clin Pharmacol 2007, 47:951–961. This pharmacokinetic study evaluated caspofungin in hepatic insufficiency and is the basis for current dose reductions in patients with Child-Pugh Class C liver dysfunction.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    •• Betts RF, Nucci M, Talwar D, et al.: A multicenter, double-blind trial of a high-dose caspofungin treatment regimen versus a standard caspofungin treatment regimen for adult patients with invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 48:1676–1684. This study confirmed that the safety and efficacy of 150 mg of caspofungin daily is equivalent to that of 50 mg daily following a 70-mg loading dose.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wiederhold NP, Tam VH, Chi J, et al.: Pharmacodynamic activity of amphotericin B deoxycholate is associated with peak plasma concentrations in a neutropenic murine model of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006, 50:469–473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Baddley JW, Marr KA, Andes DR, et al.: Patterns of susceptibility of Aspergillus isolates recovered from patients enrolled in the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network. J Clin Microbiol 2009, 47:3271–3275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vermes A, Guchelaar HJ, Dankert J: Flucytosine: a review of its pharmacology, clinical indications, pharmacokinetics, toxicity and drug interactions. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000, 46:171–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roberts JA, Udy AA, O’Donoghue S, et al.: Clearance of intravenous 5-flucytosine during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration in a patient with hepatosplenic candidiasis. Int J Antimcrob Agents 2009, 34:383–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Andes D, van Ogtrop M: In vivo characterization of the pharmacodynamics of flucytosine in a neutropenic murine disseminated candidiasis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000, 44:938–942.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy,University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Pharmacotherapy Education and Research CenterSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy PracticeUniversity of the Incarnate Word Feik School of PharmacySan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations