We sought to describe the population pharmacokinetics of tigecycline in critically ill patients and to determine optimized dosing regimens of tigecycline for different bacterial infections. This prospective study included 10 critically ill patients given a standard dose of tigecycline. Blood samples were collected during one dosing interval and were analyzed using validated chromatography. Population pharmacokinetics and Monte Carlo dosing simulations were undertaken using Pmetrics. Three target exposures, expressed as ratios of the 24-h area under the curve to MICs (AUC _0–24 /MIC), were evaluated (≥17.9 for skin infections, ≥6.96 for intra-abdominal infections, ≥4.5 for hospital-acquired pneumonia). The median age, total body weight, and body mass index (BMI) were 67 years, 69.1 kg, and 24.7 kg/m ² , respectively. A two-compartment linear model best described the time course of tigecycline concentrations. The parameter estimates (expressed as means ± standard deviations [SD]) from the final model were as follows: clearance (CL), 7.50 ± 1.11 liters/h; volume in the central compartment, 72.50 ± 21.18 liters; rate constant for tigecycline distribution from the central to the peripheral compartment, 0.31 ± 0.16 h ⁻¹ ; and rate constant for tigecycline distribution from the peripheral to the central compartment, 0.29 ± 0.30 h ⁻¹ . A larger BMI was associated with increased CL of tigecycline. Licensed doses were found to be sufficient for Enterobacter cloacae , Escherichia coli , Klebsiella pneumoniae , and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus for an AUC _0–24 /MIC target of 4.5 or 6.96. For a therapeutic target of 17.9, an increased tigecycline dose is required, especially for patients with higher BMI. The dosing requirements of tigecycline differ with the indication, with pathogen susceptibility, and potentially with patient BMI.

Posaconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is increasingly used in clinical practice. However, the utility of posaconazole TDM and the target of posaconazole plasma concentration for clinical successful prophylaxis remain uncertain and controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate posaconazole exposure-response relationship and determine an optimum posaconazole concentration for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Bibliographic databases were searched (from inception to September 2017) to select studies including the clinical outcomes below and above concentration cut-off value of 0.5 mg/L and 0.7 mg/L. The reliability of the results were evaluated with trial sequential analysis (TSA). Twenty-eight studies with 1930 patients included were analyzed. The results of our pooled analysis demonstrated that patients with posaconazole plasma concentrations over 0.5 mg/L were twice more likely to achieve successful responses compared with those with lower concentrations (odds ratio, OR = 1.98, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.09–3.58, P = 0.02) while the threshold, 0.7 mg/L showed no significant difference (OR = 1.84, 95% CI 0.94–3.63, P = 0.08). The TSA results showed that there was sufficient information to support these findings. An optimal posaconazole concentration target of 0.5 mg/L is suggested to ensure the clinical prophylactic efficacy and may help reduce the dosage and dose-dependent toxicity comparing with the target of 0.7 mg/L.

Infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cause serious health risks and significant economic burdens and the preferred drugs are still controversial. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat inpatients with complicated skin and soft structure infections (cSSSI) or hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). We also developed a decision tree model to assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics. Forty-nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (34 for cSSSI, 15 for HAP/VAP) and compared the efficacy and safety of 16 antibiotics. For cSSSI, NMA indicated that for clinical cure, linezolid was superior than vancomycin (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19–2.02), while tedizolid (OR 1.39, CI 0.70–2.76) was similar to vancomycin. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between any two interventions on total adverse events. Based on drug and hospital costs in America, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year saved for linezolid and tedizolid compared with vancomycin were US$2833 and US$5523. For HAP/VAP, there were no significant effects either for clinical cure or for safety endpoints between linezolid and vancomycin in NMA. ICERs per life-year saved for linezolid compared with vancomycin were US$2185. In these clinical trials, considering efficacy, safety, and cost-effectivenes, linezolid and tedizolid showed their superiority in MRSA cSSSI; while linezolid might be recommended to treat MRSA pneumonia. Although vancomycin was not cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic evaluation, it is still the first-line treatment for MRSA infection in the clinical practice. This study might provide new insights of therapeutic choices for patients with MRSA infections whilst awaiting the arrival of higher quality evidence.