Empiric therapy for secondary peritonitis: a pharmacodynamic analysis of cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, levofloxacin, piperacillin/tazobactam, and tigecycline using Monte Carlo simulation.

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate antibiotic therapy (ie, the selection of an empiric agent without activity against the responsible pathogen) of secondary peritonitis may result in poor patient outcomes. The selection of an appropriate agent can be challenging because of the emerging resistance of target organisms to commonly prescribed antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a pharmacodynamic analysis, using recent global surveillance data, of commonly prescribed antibiotic agents and a newer agent, tigecycline, indicated in 2005 for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections, to determine their probability for achieving microbiologic success against aerobic bacteria associated with secondary peritonitis.

METHODS

A 2-compartment model was constructed using pharmacokinetic data from critically ill patients and global surveillance data on MIC distributions for microorganisms encountered in secondary peritonitis. A Monte Carlo simulation of the modeled data was performed to determine drug-appropriate pharmacodynamic end points, including free-drug time above the MIC, steady-state concentration above the MIC, and AUC/MIC ratios. A cumulative fraction of response (CFR) against aerobic bacteria involved in secondary peritonitis was calculated for cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, levofloxacin, pip eracillin/tazobactam, and tigecycline. A CFR > or =90% was considered microbiologic success. The following treatment regimens, administered as 30-minute N infusions, were examined: cefepime 1 and 2 g q12h, ceftazidime 1 and 2 g q8h, ceftriaxone 1 and 2 g q24h, imipenem 500 mg q6h, levofloxacin 750 mg q24h, pip eracillin/tazobactam 3.375 g q6h, and tigecycline 50 mg q12h, after a loading dose of 100 mg.

RESULTS

A CFR > or =90% against nonenterococcal bacteria was predicted for imipenem 500 mg q6h (96.8%), cefepime 2 and 1 g q12h (95.3% and 92.4%, respectively), ceftazidime 2 g q8h (94.2%), and piperacillin/tazobactam 3.375 g q6h (91.2%). A CFR of 84.5% was predicted for tigecycline 50 mg q12h. Ceftriaxone and levofloxacin were predicted to have a CFR <80%. When enterococci were included in the model, the predicted CFRs for imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and tigecycline were 93.4%, 88.4%, and 86.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

: MIC distribution and pathogen prevalence strongly influence the likelihood of microbiological success in secondary peritonitis; therefore, decisions regarding empiric therapy should consider local epidemiology. Using current global data, the following regimens are adequate choices if Enterococcus is not targeted: Combination therapy (with metronidazole) using cefepime 1 g or 2 g q12h, or ceftazidime 2 g q8h; or monotherapy with imipenem 500 mg q6h or piperacillin-tazobactam 3.375 g q6h. When Enterococcus is included in the epidemiologic mix, imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and tigecycline all appear to be viable monotherapeutic choices.