211. Defining Optimal Sampling Times for Cefepime Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Clinical Practice
Date
Language
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Abstract
Background: Clinicians performing beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) lack evidence on when levels should ideally be drawn after a dose. Herein, we define the optimal timing (i.e., optimal sampling) for cefepime using real-world TDM data to validate our approach.
Methods: De-identified data from two centers performing routine cefepime TDM were extracted by InsightRX and served as an external validation cohort. Plasma cefepime was quantified using validated LC-MS/MS assays for TDM and dosing was protocolized at each site. CRRT and ECMO patients were included but other dialysis patients were not. Bias (MPE) and precision (RMSE) of a non-parametric prior were assessed. Multiple-model optimal (MM-opt) sampling strategies were estimated for the first 24 hours of treatment. To mirror clinical practice, one- and two-sample designs were evaluated. Dose and covariate values informed optimal sampling times. Bayesian PK exposures were compared using all samples, trough-only sampling, or using a single optimally timed sample. AUCs were calculated from the posteriors. For fT >MIC analysis, the MIC was fixed at 8 mg/L. We used Pmetrics 2.1.1 for R.
Results: 116 patients (42% female; median age, CRCL, and weight: 62 years, 76 mL/min, and 80 kg, respectively) contributed 235 levels. The PK model demonstrated acceptable bias and precision (-6% MPE, 30.9 RMSE) as a prior for estimating exposures from the TDM data (Fig1). For a one-sample approach, the most common MM-opt sampling times varied (Fig2) but were often a mid-point or trough. In the two-sample approach, sample one was often a mid-point and sample two was often a trough (Fig3). First 24-hr AUC and fT>MIC did not significantly differ using all available samples for analysis vs. limiting sampling to a single optimized time point vs. limiting sampling to a trough-only approach (P >0.05 for all comparisons; Fig4).
Conclusion: Optimal cefepime sampling times depended on dosing regimen, and renal disposition. When limited to a single sample, optimal sampling times for cefepime TDM were often midpoint/trough levels, but when two samples were obtained the optimal sampling times were often a mid-point followed by a trough. Estimation of PK and PK/PD exposures was not significantly worse when using a validated Bayesian prior and a trough-only sampling approach.