This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Purpose A series of iterative population pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling and probability of target attainment (PTA) analyses were undertaken to support dose optimization for aztreonam-avibactam, a combination antibiotic. Methods Joint PTA analyses (primary target: 60% f T>8 mg/L for aztreonam, 50% f T>2.5 mg/L for avibactam) explored the impact of patient variability, and evaluated loading doses and extended infusions, and adjustments for patients with moderate (estimated creatinine clearance [CrCL] >30 to ≤50 mL/min) and severe renal impairment (>15 to ≤30 mL/min). Achievement of >90% joint PTA, and the impact of differential renal clearance, were considerations in dose selection. Results Dose selection for phase I and phase IIa (Cohort 1) was based on PK models of avibactam in patients and of aztreonam in healthy volunteers with ‘patient-like’ assumptions. Simulations demonstrated that: 3-h and continuous infusions provide comparable PTA; with patient variability, avibactam dose is the main driver of joint PTA; loading doses support more rapid joint target attainment. Aztreonam/avibactam 500/137 mg 30-min loading dose and 1500/410 mg 3-h maintenance infusions q6h was selected for initial phase IIa evaluation in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. Later PTA analyses using expanded PK models supported an increased avibactam dose (500/167 mg loading; 1500/500 q6h maintenance) and were also used to select doses for renal impairment. Conclusion Aztreonam-avibactam 3-h infusions administered q6h are necessary to optimize joint PTA. Aztreonam-avibactam 500/167 mg loading 30-min infusion followed by 1500/500 mg maintenance 3-h infusions q6h (for CrCL >50 mL/min) is undergoing phase III evaluation. Clinical trial registration: NCT01689207 (September 21, 2012); NCT02655419 (January 14, 2016); NCT03329092 (November 1, 2017); NCT03580044 (July 9, 2018)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Das et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: