Appropriateness of loading dose and TDM in patients treated with teicoplanin: a single-centre observational retrospective cohort study comparing single-daily and thrice-weekly regimens.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Alessandra Helen Behring, Chiara Mariani, Martina Gerbi, Martina Offer, Maddalena Matone, Dario Cattaneo, Andrea Giacomelli, Marta Colaneri, Riccardo Giorgi, Stefania Merli, Stefania Piconi, Spinello Antinori, Andrea Gori, Matteo Passerini
{"title":"Appropriateness of loading dose and TDM in patients treated with teicoplanin: a single-centre observational retrospective cohort study comparing single-daily and thrice-weekly regimens.","authors":"Alessandra Helen Behring, Chiara Mariani, Martina Gerbi, Martina Offer, Maddalena Matone, Dario Cattaneo, Andrea Giacomelli, Marta Colaneri, Riccardo Giorgi, Stefania Merli, Stefania Piconi, Spinello Antinori, Andrea Gori, Matteo Passerini","doi":"10.1093/jac/dkaf097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the appropriateness of teicoplanin loading dose and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in single-daily regimen (SDR) versus thrice-weekly regimen (TWR), and to compare safety and effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-centre observational retrospective cohort study included adult patients treated with TDM-based teicoplanin for infections between April 2015 and December 2021. Appropriateness of loading dose and TDM, adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes were evaluated. A post hoc analysis assessed achievement of target TDM concentrations following appropriate loading dose.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 183 patients (103 SDR, 80 TWR), appropriate loading doses were less frequent in the SDR group [33/103 (35.9%, missing = 11) versus 56/80 (72.7%, missing = 3); P < 0.001]. First TDM was less commonly performed as recommended in the SDR group on Day 4 [89/103 (86.4%) versus 79/80 (98.8%); P = 0.002] and on Day 7 [31/103 (30.1%) versus 47/80 (58.8%); P < 0.001]. No significant differences were observed in AEs [15/103 (14.6%) versus 8/80 (10%); P = 0.38] or clinical success [60/103 (58.3%) versus 49/80 (61.3%); P = 0.681] between groups. Post hoc analysis showed that 2/16 (13%) patients with deep infections and 9/11 (82%) with non-deep infections on a TWR achieved target concentrations after loading dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Higher adherence to loading dose and TDM recommendations was observed for TWR compared with SDR. However, the TWR often failed to achieve adequate TDM levels for higher targets, highlighting the need for optimized TWR loading dose strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkaf097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the appropriateness of teicoplanin loading dose and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in single-daily regimen (SDR) versus thrice-weekly regimen (TWR), and to compare safety and effectiveness.

Methods: This single-centre observational retrospective cohort study included adult patients treated with TDM-based teicoplanin for infections between April 2015 and December 2021. Appropriateness of loading dose and TDM, adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes were evaluated. A post hoc analysis assessed achievement of target TDM concentrations following appropriate loading dose.

Results: Among 183 patients (103 SDR, 80 TWR), appropriate loading doses were less frequent in the SDR group [33/103 (35.9%, missing = 11) versus 56/80 (72.7%, missing = 3); P < 0.001]. First TDM was less commonly performed as recommended in the SDR group on Day 4 [89/103 (86.4%) versus 79/80 (98.8%); P = 0.002] and on Day 7 [31/103 (30.1%) versus 47/80 (58.8%); P < 0.001]. No significant differences were observed in AEs [15/103 (14.6%) versus 8/80 (10%); P = 0.38] or clinical success [60/103 (58.3%) versus 49/80 (61.3%); P = 0.681] between groups. Post hoc analysis showed that 2/16 (13%) patients with deep infections and 9/11 (82%) with non-deep infections on a TWR achieved target concentrations after loading dose.

Conclusions: Higher adherence to loading dose and TDM recommendations was observed for TWR compared with SDR. However, the TWR often failed to achieve adequate TDM levels for higher targets, highlighting the need for optimized TWR loading dose strategies.

替柯planin治疗患者的负荷剂量和TDM的适宜性:一项单中心观察性回顾性队列研究,比较每日一次和每周三次的方案。
目的:评价单日方案(SDR)与三周方案(TWR)中替柯planin负荷剂量和治疗药物监测(TDM)的适宜性,并比较其安全性和有效性。方法:这项单中心观察性回顾性队列研究纳入了2015年4月至2021年12月期间接受基于tdm的teicoplanin治疗感染的成年患者。评估负荷剂量和TDM的适宜性、不良事件(ae)和临床结果。一项事后分析评估了适当负荷剂量后TDM目标浓度的实现情况。结果:183例患者(103 SDR, 80 TWR)中,适当的负荷剂量在SDR组较少出现[33/103(35.9%,缺失= 11)vs 56/80(72.7%,缺失= 3);结论:与SDR相比,TWR对负荷剂量和TDM建议的依从性更高。然而,对于更高的目标,TWR往往无法达到足够的TDM水平,这突出了优化TWR加载剂量策略的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.80%
发文量
423
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes articles that further knowledge and advance the science and application of antimicrobial chemotherapy with antibiotics and antifungal, antiviral and antiprotozoal agents. The Journal publishes primarily in human medicine, and articles in veterinary medicine likely to have an impact on global health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信