Objectives Beta-lactam antibiotics are often subject to therapeutic drug monitoring, but breakpoints of target attainment are mostly based on expert opinions. Studies that show a correlation between target attainment and infection resolution are missing. This analysis investigated whether there is a difference in infection resolution based on two breakpoints of target attainment. Methods An outcome group out of 1392 critically ill patients treated with meropenem or piperacillin-tazobactam was formed due to different selection criteria. Afterwards, three groups were created: group 1=free drug concentration (f) was < 100% of the time (T) above the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) (< 100% fT >MIC), group 2=100% fT >MIC<4xMIC, and group 3=100% fT >4xMIC. Parameters for infection control, renal and liver function, and estimated and observed in-hospital mortality were compared between those groups. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance, Tukey post hoc test, U test, and bivariate logistic regression. Results The outcome group consisted of 55 patients (groups 1–3, 17, 24, and 14 patients, respectively). Patients allocated to group 2 or 3 had a significantly faster reduction of the C-reactive protein in contrast to patients allocated to group 1 (p = 0.033 and p = 0.026). Patients allocated to group 3 had a worse renal function, a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score, were older, and had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to group 1 (p = 0.017) and group 2 (p = 0.001). The higher mortality was significantly influenced by worse liver function, higher APACHE II, and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and norepinephrine therapy. Conclusion Achieving the target 100% fT >MIC leads to faster infection resolution in the critically ill. However, there was no benefit for patients who reached the highest target of 100% fT >4xMIC, although the mortality rate was higher possibly due to confounding effects. In conclusion, we recommend the target 100% fT >MIC<4xMIC for critically ill patients. Trial registration NCT03985605

BackgroundSerious bleeding events have been frequently described in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). In secondary analyses of phase 3 trials, DOAC plasma concentrations were shown to correlate with bleeding outcomes. This study aimed to describe rivaroxaban plasma levels in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) for bleeding events. For each patient, risk factors for experiencing bleeding events were also investigated.MethodsThis analysis was part of an observational study conducted in the ED of two teaching hospitals. Plasma samples from 10 rivaroxaban-treated patients admitted for bleeding events were collected. Rivaroxaban plasma concentrations were determined by calibrated chromogenic anti-Xa assay. The measured rivaroxaban levels were then extrapolated at trough using a published population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model, and compared to on-therapy ranges observed in large clinical trials. For each patient, clinical, medication and ABCB1 genotype data were collected.ResultsRivaroxaban measurements varied from 5 to 358 ng/ml, with a post-intake delay ranging from 9 to 38 h. At trough, estimated plasma concentrations were between 12 and 251 ng/ml (median value 94 ng/ml). Four patients had higher-than-expected rivaroxaban levels. Inadequate dose regimen, excessive alcohol consumption and lack of treatment reassessment were observed in several patients. Half of patients were taking ≥1 drug with potential pharmacokinetics interactions (e.g. amiodarone, diltiazem), while half of patients were taking ≥1 drug increasing the risk of bleeding. All 3 patients with available genotyping data and higher-than-expected rivaroxaban levels were heterozygous or homozygous mutated for the ABCB1 1236C > T, 2677G > T, 3435 C > T and rs4148738 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP).ConclusionsRivaroxaban patients admitted to the ED for bleeding events showed highly variable plasma concentrations. This analysis underlines the usefulness of rapid DOAC measurement and the value of PopPK models to estimate concentrations at trough in a context where the post-intake delay is unmanageable. Close patient follow-up, including renal function assessment and drug interactions review, is essential for bleeding risk minimization.

Adequate linezolid blood concentrations have been shown to be associated with an improved clinical outcome. Our goal was to assess new predictors of inadequate linezolid concentrations often observed in critically ill patients. Fifty-two critically ill patients with severe infections receiving standard dosing of linezolid participated in this prospective observational study. Serum samples (median, 32 per patient) were taken on four consecutive days, and total linezolid concentrations were quantified. Covariates influencing linezolid pharmacokinetics were identified by multivariate analysis and a population pharmacokinetic model. Target attainment (area under the concentration-time curve over 12 h [AUC 12 ]/MIC ratio of >50; MIC ‫؍‬ 2 mg/liter) was calculated for both the study patients and a simulated independent patient group (n ‫؍‬ 67,000). Target attainment was observed for only 36% of the population on both days 1 and 4. Independent covariates related to significant decreases of linezolid concentrations included higher weight, creatinine clearance rates, and fibrinogen and antithrombin concentrations, lower concentrations of lactate, and the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Linezolid clearance was increased in ARDS patients (by 82%) and in patients with elevated fibrinogen or decreased lactate concentrations. In simulated patients, most covariates, including fibrinogen and lactate concentrations and weight, showed quantitatively minor effects on target attainment (difference of <9% between the first and fourth quartiles of the respective parameters). In contrast, the presence of ARDS had the strongest influence, with only <6% of simulated patients reaching this target. In conclusion, the presence of ARDS was identified as a new and strong predictor of insufficient linezolid concentrations, which might cause treatment failure. Insufficient concentrations might also be a major problem in patients with combined alterations of other covariate parameters. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01793012.)