Abstract
Background: Appropriate dosing of gentamicin in critically ill neonates is still debated.
Objective: To assess the peak concentration (Cmax) and area-under-the-time-concentration curve (AUC0-24) of gentamicin and to simulate the recommended doses using the Monte Carlo method.
Methods: This was a retrospective study on critically ill neonates carried over a one-year period. The demographic characteristics, dosage regimen and gentamicin concentrations were recorded for each neonate. Using Bayesian pharmacokinetic modeling, Cmax and AUC0-24 were predicted. Dose recommendations for the target Cmax (μg/ml) of 12 were obtained, and Monte Carlo simulation (100,000 iterations) was used for predicting the pharmacokinetic parameters and recommended doses for various birth weight categories.
Results: Eighty-two critically ill neonates (with an average gestational age of 33.7 weeks; and birth weight of 2.1 kg) were recruited. Higher Cmax and AUC0-24 values were predicted in premature neonates, with greater cumulative AUCs in extremely preterm neonates. The average administered dose was 4 mg/kg/day and 75% of the participants had Cmax greater than 12 μg/ml following a single dose, and 85% were found to be at steady state. On the contrary, only 25% of the study population had the recommended AUC0-24 (above 125 μg-hr/ml). Simulation tests indicate that 90% of the critically ill neonates would achieve recommended Cmax with doses ranging between 5 and 6 mg/kg/day.
Conclusion: Currently used dose of 4 mg/kg/day is adequate to maintain Cmax in a large majority of the study population, with one-fourth population reporting the recommended AUC0-24. Increasing the dose to 5-6 mg/kg/day will more likely help to achieve both the recommended Cmax and AUC0-24 values.
Keywords: Aminoglycosides, clinical pharmacokinetics, gentamicin, Bayesian, Monte Carlo simulations, dosing strategy.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000000542] [PMID: 25191849]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007691-200208000-00011] [PMID: 12142638]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2017-0058] [PMID: 28758800]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/48.6.887]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02004-17] [PMID: 29358294]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1676-3] [PMID: 31492162]
[PMID: 29203493]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0000000000000432] [PMID: 28682925]
[PMID: 11758844]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01297.x] [PMID: 19397541]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.01.013] [PMID: 21353108]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.05.343] [PMID: 28579209]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2020.01.007]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2010.11.006] [PMID: 21144989]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02260.x] [PMID: 15606440]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007691-198901000-00004] [PMID: 2911847]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007691-199206000-00001] [PMID: 1412601]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2146/ajhp160061] [PMID: 28336756]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.03.025] [PMID: 28483249]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.05.036] [PMID: 26071016]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.07.101] [PMID: 30244991]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1592/phco.31.7.649] [PMID: 21923451]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01314-10] [PMID: 21402835]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/520991] [PMID: 17712761]