review of antibiotic dosing with peritonitis in apdmancini and. piraino . july19 – vol. 39, no. 4...

Peritoneal Dialysis International, Vol. 39, pp. 299–305www.PDIConnect.com

0896-8608/19 $3.00 + .00Copyright © 2019 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis

299

REVIEW OF ANTIBIOTIC DOSING WITH PERITONITIS IN APD

Ann Mancini1 and Beth Piraino2

Baxter Healthcare Corporation,1 Renal Division, Deerfield, IL, USA; and Renal Electrolyte Division at The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine,2 Pittsburgh, PA, USA

REVIEWS

Peritonitis is the leading cause of transfer from peritoneal dialysis (PD) to hemodialysis (HD). It is also the leading cause of hospi-talization of PD patients. The usual treatment of peritonitis for automated PD (APD) patients consists of antibiotics given once daily in the long dwell. However, the once-daily antibiotic dosing recommendations are based primarily on studies with continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) regimens. Published studies on antibiotic dosing in APD are very limited. We will review the scant literature on this topic. It is possible that extrapolating once-daily dosing from CAPD to APD may lead to underdosing. There is a need for further pharmacokinetic studies of antibiotic dosing in APD.

Perit Dial Int 2019; 39(4):299–305 https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2018.00209

KEY WORDS: Automated peritoneal dialysis; pharmacokinetics.

Peritonitis has been referred to as the “Achilles heel” of peri-toneal dialysis (PD). Peritonitis rates were high in the early

days of PD. Published data from the late 1970s demonstrated very high peritonitis rates, using primitive connectology. During the first 2 years of PD at the University of Missouri, the peritonitis rate was 1 episode every 2.2 patient (pt) months (1). As connectology improved, rates rapidly dropped but were still problematic. National data from the Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) registry have demonstrated that widespread implementation of clinical practice guidelines (International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis [ISPD] and Kidney Health Australia-Caring for Australians with Renal Impairment [KAH-CARI]) can dramatically reduce peritonitis rates on a national level. In 2008, the rates of peritonitis in Australia and New Zealand were 0.62 and 0.8 episodes/yr, respectively, which fell

to 0.41 and 0.47 episodes/yr, after widespread implementation of the clinical practice guidelines (2,3).

Even as peritonitis rates have decreased over time, infec-tion is still the leading cause of transfer from PD to hemodi-alysis (HD) in the United States (4,5). The 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) reveals that all-cause hospital admissions were slightly higher for HD than PD (1.73 vs 1.69 admissions/pt year), but that admissions for infection are more common in PD vs HD (0.56 vs 0.44 episodes/pt year) and infection is the leading cause of hospital admission for PD patients (6). Infections in PD patients account for one third of the admissions and are higher than cardiovascular (CV) causes, in contrast to in-center HD patients. This makes the prevention and treatment of peritonitis a top priority among PD practitioners.

The empiric treatment recommendations for peritonitis are: gram-positive coverage with first-generation cephalosporin or vancomycin; gram-negative coverage with third-generation cephalosporin or an aminoglycoside (7). Intraperitoneal (IP) dosing is preferred over intravenous dosing of antibiotics, unless signs and symptoms of systemic sepsis are present (7,8). Unfortunately, data regarding antibiotic dosing for PD peritonitis are extremely limited, especially for APD (8). Li et al. in recent guidelines point out that extrapolating dosing from continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) to automated PD (APD) may lead to underdosing (7). This paper will review pertinent issues with PD peritonitis and the antibiotics commonly prescribed for peritonitis with a focus on their use in APD to highlight the deficits of the research in this area.

FIRST GENERATION CEPHALOSPORINS, SPECIFICALLY CEFAZOLIN

There are very limited papers studying dosing of first-generation cephalosporins in APD as shown in Table 1. Perhaps because of this, the most recent International Society for

Correspondence to: Ann Mancini, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, 1 Baxter Parkway, Deerfield, IL 60015, USA.

[email protected] 13 September 2018; accepted 14 January 2019.

The single copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. For permission to reprint multiple copies or to order presentation-ready

copies for distribution, contact Multimed Inc. at [email protected]

by guest on March 29, 2020

http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from

https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2018.00209

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.pdiconnect.com/

300

MANCINI and PIRAINO JULY 2019 – VOL. 39, NO. 4 PDI

Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines (7) eliminated the table for APD antibiotics and only showed dosing for CAPD as opposed to the guidelines in 2010 (13–15). The most recent guidelines suggest that continuous dosing of cephalosporins in APD may be preferable (7). This recommendation may have been made due to the paucity of pharmacokinetic data available on intermittent dosing of first-generation cephalosporins in APD. Tosukhowong et al. state because cefazolin has no post-antibiotic effect, it is given continuously (16). When a drug concentration is less than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), it loses bactericidal and bacteriostatic effects. Therefore, once-daily dosages are not recommended for cefazolin. However, in the US, once-daily dosing is a common practice.

It may be that with a single dose given in the long dwell of APD, dialysate cephalosporin levels are low during the short nighttime cycles. Cephalosporins are bactericidal when the concentration exceeds the MIC of bacteria, usually 1 – 8 mg/L. Concentration of the antibiotic at the site of infection is most relevant for killing bacteria (17). Whether this has a clinical impact on relapsing/repeat peritonitis and biofilm formation is unclear. Biofilm may be the cause of both relapsing and repeat peritonitis (7). Peritoneal dialysis catheters have been shown to be colonized by bacterial biofilms and may lead to recurrent

infections (18–20). Biofilms have an innate lack of antibiotic susceptibility compared with the planktonic form of the organ-ism (21). The MIC is the concentration of an antibiotic to eradi-cate the planktonic form of the bacteria (21). However, the MIC concentration is ineffective on organisms in their biofilm state (21). Eradication of the organism in the biofilm state may take 100 – 1,000 times the concentration of the antibiotic MIC level to be effective (21). The minimum biofilm eradication concen-tration (MBEC) is defined as the minimum concentration of an antimicrobial that eradicates biofilm (22). Girard has proposed testing for MBEC levels when patients have a longstanding or recurrent peritonitis (20). This requires further investigation.

Manley et al. demonstrated that high dialysate flow rates (> 5.50 mL/min) vs low dialysate flow rates (< 5.50 mL/min) lead to an increased rate of cefazolin clearance in North American PD patients (23). Automatic PD prescriptions typi-cally use 12 – 16 L of dialysate per day compared with 6 – 10 L/day in CAPD (24). With most cycler prescriptions, the dwell time is 1 – 1.5 hours per cycle at night. It is unclear if this is adequate to allow diffusion from plasma to dialysate (site of the infection) at sufficiently high levels. What is clear is that CAPD and APD prescriptions are very different and we cannot conclude what works in CAPD will work APD.

TABLE 1First Generation Cephalosporins: Cefazolin

Author/year Type of study

Number of patients & peritonitis

yes/noPharmacokinetic

data Outcome

Fielding 2002 (9) Retrospective review of 60 peritonitis episodes

in 40 patients

Cefazolin 1.5 g IP QD in long dwell

40 APD with peritonitis

No – 78.3% episodes resolved– 82.9% of gram-positive resolved– 50% of gram-negative resolved– Relapse rate 8% (pts whose

catheters were not removed)– States this was effective therapy

Manley 2000 (10) Prospective observational study

Cefazolin 15 mg/kg QD in long dwell

10 APD no peritonitis

Yes – Dosing of 15–20 mg/kg cefazolin adequate

Troidle 1999 (11) Prospective observational study patients with peritonitis

Cefazolin 2 g QD in long dwell


No – 55% episodes resolved with QD cefazolin

– States therapy is not optimal

Peerapornratana 2017 (12) Prospective observational study

Cefazolin 20 mg/kg in short dwells over 10 hours on

cycler dextrose No last fill

Patients with dry day


Yes – Adequate cefazolin in plasma >8 mg/L at 24 hours

APD = automated peritoneal dialysis; IP = intraperitoneal; QD = daily; pts = patients.




http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from


301

PDI JULY 2019 – VOL. 39, NO. 4 ANTIBIOTIC DOSING IN APD

VANCOMYCIN

Vancomycin is routinely given intermittently intraperitone-ally (IP) for peritonitis for APD and CAPD. This is a very conve-nient approach and is usually dosed every 3 – 7 days. However, Manley et al. point out this may lead to low peritoneal levels

of vancomycin at the end of the rapid cycles and daily dosing may be preferable (25). Despite the routine use of vancomycin in APD patients, there are limited studies as shown in Table 2.

It is not clear what serum vancomycin trough level is necessary for peritonitis resolution. Dialysate levels of van-comycin are considerably lower than serum levels. Fish et al.

TABLE 2 Vancomycin


Number of patients and peritonitis


data Outcomes

Manley 2001 (25) Prospective observational

Vancomycin 15 mg/kg given IV


Yes – Serum vancomycin and dialysate vancomycin levels above MIC only during 1st & 2nd dwell.

– In APD vancomycin clearance is significant & daily IP dosing needed to provide adequate dialysate concentrations.

Fish 2012 (26) Prospective observational

Vancomycin 30 mg/kg IP

Day 5 checked serum & dialysate vancomycin

levels after a 4-h dwell


Yes – Serum vancomycin >12 mg/L 98% pts– Dialysate vancomycin <4 mg/L 23% pts– Conclude serum levels alone are not to

be used to predict dialysate level due to low correlation coefficient

– Suggest smaller more frequent dosing may be preferable

Mulhern 1995 (27) Retrospective review

Vancomycin 15 mg/kg IV Q week × 4

10 APD 21 CAPD

All with peritonitis

Yes – 9 episodes relapsed– Cumulative trough of <12 mg/L or

initial day 7 trough <9 mg/L were predictive of relapse

Stevenson 2015 (28) Retrospective cohort 3 APD27 CAPD


Yes – Vancomycin levels were similar in patients achieving cure vs no cure

– Conclude outcomes not associated with serum levels

Blunden 2010 (29) Retrospective observational

Vancomycin 25 mg/kg for anuric (increased by

25% for non-anuric

120 APD 267 CAPD


Yes – Vancomycin level did not predict cure or relapse of gram-positive or culture- negative peritonitis

Schaefer 1999 (30) Prospective observational

Vancomycin 30 mg/L continuous dosing vsinitial loading dose

15 mg/kg followed by 2nd dose of 30 mg/kg

after 7 days

152 pediatric pts with 166 episodes of

bacterial peritonitis

Both APD and CAPD utilized

(no breakdown given on number of APD vs CAPD)

No – No breakdown between outcomes of CAPD and APD pts

Overall:– No difference in relapse rate

continuous vs intermittent vancomycin – Eradication of causative organism more

frequent in continuous vs intermittent at both 60 hours (p<0.001) and 7 days (p=0.004)

APD = automated peritoneal dialysis; IV = intravenous; MIC = minimum inhibitory concentration; IP = intraperitoneal; pts = patients; CAPD = continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; pts = patients; Q week = weekly.




http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from


302


demonstrated on the 5th day, after receiving a 30 mg/kg dose of vancomycin, 98% of the 48 patients had vancomy-cin serum concentrations > 12 mg/L (26). However, 23% (8 CAPD patients and 3 APD) of those patients had a vancomy-cin effluent level (< 4 mg/L) at the end of a 4-hour dwell. The authors suggest that smaller more frequent doses of vancomycin may be preferable and serum vancomycin levels do not guarantee therapeutic levels within the dialysate. They also acknowledge that with APD the vancomycin levels may be even lower as the dwells in APD are shorter than 4 hours (26).

Mulhern demonstrated that patients who relapsed had lower serum vancomycin levels (7.8 ± 0.6 mg/L during relapse vs 13.7 ± 0.9mg/L during relapse-free episodes p = 0.0004) (27). In contrast, Stevenson showed no relationship between vancomycin levels and peritonitis cure, relapse or repeat; however, 79% of these patients were on CAPD (28). Another paper on both CAPD and APD (69% CAPD and 31% APD) patients showed no relationship between vancomycin serum level and peritonitis outcome (29).

A recent paper looked retrospectively at a group of 35 Canadian patients with 58 episodes of coagulase-negative

TABLE 3 Third-Generation Cephalosporins: Ceftazidime




data Outcome

Hota 2011 (33) Monte Carlo analysis

Modeled time IP antibiotic concentration

> 5 × MIC & ratio of AUC/MIC occurred.

– Used 2005 ISPD dosing for 70 kg man

Intermittent dose: 15 mg/kg

Continuous dose:LD 500 mg/L & MD of

125 mg/L

1,000 virtual pts – CAPD

(5 exchanges) – APD

(5 2-hour cycles night & 2 7-hour

exchanges during day)

– Continuous or intermittently dosed ceftazidime did not meet AUC/MIC ratio

– Continuous dosing CAPD & APD ceftazidime gave greater than 5 × MIC (50% treatment time)

– Intermittent dosing failed to meet this 75%–100% of time

Peerapornratana 2017 (12) Prospective observational study;

20 mg/kg in short dwells over 10 hours on cycler

No last fill Patients with dry day

6 APD without peritonitis

Yes – Adequate ceftazidime in plasma >8 mg/L at 24 hours

Kim 2011 (34) APD 3 dwells on cycler with 2-day dwells.

Sampled at mid-point & end of each dwell both

blood and dialysateSimulated dosing of

15 mg/kg IV & 20 mg/kg IP

11 APD without peritonitis

Yes – Ceftazidime IV 15 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg IP QD is adequate

Sisterhen 2006 (35) Prospective non-randomized pilot study of one

24-h period

125 mg/L was given with each exchange

5 pediatric APD pts without

peritonitis

Yes – Continuous dosing of IP ceftazidime without a loading dose achieved adequate serum & dialysate levels

IP = intraperitoneal; MIC = minimal inhibitory concentration; AUC = area under the curve; ISPD = International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis; LD = loading dose; MD = maintenance dose; CAPD = continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; APD = automated peritoneal dialysis; IV = intravenous; pts = patients.




http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from


303


Stapholycoccus (CNS) peritonitis (31). No episodes of relapsing peritonitis were found in patients with a mean serum vanco-mycin trough of > 16 mg/L. This is higher than the 15 mg/L recommended by ISPD (7). Of interest during a second episode of CNS peritonitis, higher vancomycin levels were not helpful in preventing further relapse/repeat peritonitis. This may suggest that if a CNS biofilm becomes established, further vancomycin treatment is unlikely to effect a cure (31).

Vancomycin-resistant S. aureus is a serious concern within the medical community. A vancomycin trough of < 10 mg/L may predict not only the risk of treatment failure but also the devel-opment of vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (32). This was from a consensus paper on therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients. It was not studied directly with PD peritonitis.

THIRD GENERATION CEPHALOSPORINS, SPECIFICALLY CEFTAZIDIME

Table 3 shows the limited data on the use of third- generation cephlosporins in APD. Of the 4 papers listed, 1 was simulated

data (Monte Carlo) (33). The Monte Carlo analysis demon-strated the inability of intermittent dosing with ceftazidime to achieve an IP antibiotic level of > 5 × MIC. The levels were < 5 × MIC for 75% – 100% of the time. The same was true with intermittent dosing of cefazolin (33).

Third generation antibiotics are almost always given in the long dwell daily. The guidelines recommend an intermittent once-daily dose (7). However, this daily dose was studied in CAPD but is widely extrapolated to APD. Very little data support this approach. More studies are needed.

AMINOGLYCOSIDES, SPECIFICALLY GENTAMICIN AND TOBRAMYCIN

Aminoglycosides initially bind to the outside of the bac-teria in a concentration-dependent manner, causing damage to the membrane and possible cell death. The antibiotic is then taken into the cell, where it attaches to ribosomes; this impairs the reading of messenger ribonucleic acid and kills the bacterium. This second bactericidal phase is not

TABLE 4 Aminoglycosides: Gentamicin and Tobramycin




data Audiometry Outcome

Fielding 2002 (9) Retrospective review:

Cefazolin 1.5 g IP QDand

Gentamicin IP 0.6 mg/kg QD × 3 days

(then as indicated)(UO<500 mL)

or 1.5 mg/kg

(UO>500 mL)

40 APDwith peritonitis

No No – 78.3% successfully treated – 82.9% gram-positive infections

resolved – 50% gram-negative infections

resolved

Tang 2014 (45) Retrospective cohort study

Gentamicin 0.6 mg/kg Gentamicin level

(day 2) If level <0.5 mg/L

another dose given Total course 5 days


Yes No – Gentamicin levels did not predict efficacy of treatment except for polymicrobial peritonitis

Manley 2000 (10) Tobramycin 0.6 mg/kg IV QD

10 APDwithout peritonitis

Yes No – Tobramycin half life shorter on cycler (p<0.001)

– Both serum & dialysate levels were above MIC throughout 24-h period.

– Modeling indicates IP dosing should be 1.5 mg/kg on day 1, then 0.5 mg/kg thereafter

IP = intraperitoneal; UO = urine output; APD = automated peritoneal dialysis; MIC = minimal inhibitory concentration; IV = intravenous.




http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from


304


concentration-dependent. It is known as the post-antibiotic effect (PAE). Because of the PAE, aminoglycosides are suited for intermittent dosing (36).

Intermittent dosing of aminoglycosides may be more appropriate than continual dosing due to the phenomenon of adaptive resistance (AR). Adaptive resistance occurs in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacilli (37)

and refers to the organism’s resistance to the bactericidal effect of an aminoglycoside antibiotic (38). The drug refrac-toriness is enhanced by continuous exposure to the drug but can be reversed after several hours in a drug-free environment (38). Because of adaptive resistance, longer dosing intervals with aminoglycosides may improve their efficacy (37).

If used for more than a brief period, vestibular and oto-toxicity may become an issue. Aminoglycosides have different levels of toxicity in the order of gentamicin > tobramycin > netilmicin (39). Gentamicin and tobramycin can be toxic to both the cochlea (hearing loss) and the vestibular apparatus (ataxia, vertigo, and oscillopsia), and the damage may be acute or chronic (40). Both ototoxicity and vestibular toxicity have been reported in PD with the use of gentamicin, with some data indicating cumulative effect with repeated courses (41–44). Empiric dosing as initial treatment of peritonitis is likely safe but long-term use is more problematic. The 2016 ISPD guidelines provide intermittent and continuous dosing recommendations for both gentamicin and tobramycin (7). The studies cited in the 2016 guidelines were all done on CAPD patients (7). In the current literature, studies on APD dosing are scant as shown in Table 4.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Few data are available on the pharmacokinetics of many commonly used antibiotics when given intraperitoneally in APD, yet this is the form of dialysis that most patients utilize in the western world. There are many areas where more research is needed. Pharmacokinetic and efficacy data are needed on continuous vs intermittent dosing, increased dosing for residual renal failure, effect of membrane transport status on dosing, and particularly dosing in APD vs CAPD.

Research is also needed to evaluate drug pharmacokinetics during peritonitis. A paper by Imada in 1988 demonstrated that CAPD patients with peritonitis who received IP doses of cefotaxime or cephalothin had lower levels of antibiotic in the dialysate than those who did not have peritonitis (46). The serum levels of cefotaxime were higher in patients with peritonitis than those without peritonitis. The serum level of cephalothin was not different between the 2 groups (46). The authors went on to say that high concentrations of antibiotic in the peritoneum can only be maintained by adding antibiotic to each CAPD exchange (46). Since peritoneal inflammation affects IP drug pharmacokinetics and absorption is increased into the blood, studies must also be done at different stages of peritonitis as the inflammation is resolving.

Also needed is more research into MIC vs MBEC to poten-tially reduce relapsing and repeat peritonitis. We urge further

research on these areas to enhance treatment of peritonitis and improve outcomes. Nephrologists, nurses, and pharma-cists should collaborate in designing and carrying out these studies. Both the ISPD and industry should help with funding of these studies.

In the absence of more data on dosing for APD, authors should carefully monitor levels of vancomycin, ensuring that the trough levels stay at 15 μg/mL as a minimum. Careful assessment of response to the antibiotics by repeated measure-ment of effluent cell count is useful in following the course of therapy of patients on APD in particular. In some circum-stances, conversion from APD to CAPD may be ideal to ensure adequate delivery of antibiotics, but this is often impractical. Another option for peritonitis that is not resolving quickly may be to convert from intermittent dosing of antibiotics to continuous dosing while remaining on APD.

DISCLOSURES

AM is an employee of Baxter Healthcare and BP has no conflicts of interest to declare.

REFERENCES

1. Nolph KD, Prowant B, Sorkin MI, Gloor H. The incidence and characteristics of peritonitis in the fourth year of a continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis program. Perit Dial Int 1981; 1:50–3.

2. Jose MD, Johnson DW, Mudge DW, Tranaeus A, Voss D, Walker R, et al. Peritoneal dialysis practice in Australia and New Zealand: a call to action. Nephrol 2011; 16:19–29.

3. Mudge DW, Boudville N, Brown F, Clayton P, Duddington M, Holt S, et al. Peritoneal dialysis practice in Australia and New Zealand: a call to sustain the action. Nephrol 2016; 21:53–46.

4. Piraino B, Wyman AE, Sheth H. Examination of survival after transfer from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis. Adv Perit Dial 2012; 28:64–7.

5. Mujais S. Microbiology and outcomes of peritonitis in North America. Kidney Int 2006; 70:S55–62

6. United States Renal Data System. 2017 USRDS annual data report: epi-demiology of kidney disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD, 2017; Vol 2:Fig 4.2.

7. Li PK, Szeto CC, Piraino B, de Atreaga J, Fan S, Figueiredo AE, et al. ISPD peritonitis recommendations: 2016 update on prevention and treatment. Perit Dial Int 2016; 36:481–508.

8. Ballinger AE, Palmer SC, Wiggins KJ, Craig JC, Johnson DW, Cross NB, et al. Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 4:CD005284.

9. Fielding RE, Clemenger M, Goldberg L, Brown EA. Treatment outcome of peritonitis in automated peritoneal dialysis, using a once-daily cefazolin-based regimen. Perit Dial Int 2002; 22:345–9.

10. Manley HJ, Bailie GR, Frye R, Hess LD, McGoldrick MD. Pharmacokinetics of intermittent intravenous cefazolin and tobramycin in patient treated with automated peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:1310–6.

11. Troidle LK, Gorban-Brennan, Kliger A, Finkelstein F. Once-daily intraperito-neal cefazolin and oral ciprofloxacin as empiric therapy for the treatment of peritonitis. Adv Perit Dial 1999; 15:213–6.

12. Peerapornratana S, Chariyavilaskul P, Kanjanabuch T, Praditpornsilpa K, Eiam-Ong S, Katavetin P. Short-dwell cycling intraperitoneal cefazolin plus ceftazidime in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 2017; 37:218–24.

13. Li PK, Szeto CC, Piraino B, Bernardini J, Figueiredo AE, Gupta A, et al. Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2010 update. Perit Dial Int 2010; 30:393–423.




http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from


305


14. Mancini A, Todd L. Inconsistencies in the ISPD peritonitis recom-mendations: 2016 update on prevention and treatment and the ISPD catheter-related infection recommendations; 2017 update. Perit Dial Int 2018; 38:309–10.

15. Szeto CC, Li PK. Concerns regarding inconsistencies within and between ISPD recommendations for peritonitis and catheter related infections—in reply. Perit Dial Int 2018; 38:311.

16. Tosukhowong T, Eiam-ong S, Tamutok K, Wittayalertpanya S, Ayudhya DP. Pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal cefazolin and gentamicin in empiric therapy of peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 2001; 21:587–94.

17. Roberts DM, Ranganathan D, Wallis SC, Varghese JM, Kark A, Lipman J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal cefalothin and cefazolin in patients being treated for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 2016; 36:415–20.

18. Dasgupta MK, Ward K, Noble PA, Larabie M, Costerton JW. Development of bacterial biofilms on silastic catheter materials in peritoneal dialysis fluid. Am J of Kidney Dis 1994; 5:709–16.

19. Dasgupta MK, Costerton JW. Significance of biofilm adherent bacterial microcolonies on Tenckhoff catheters of CAPD patients. Blood Purif 1989; 7:144–55.

20. Girard LP, Ceri H, Gibb AP, Olson M, Sepandj F. MIC versus MBEC to deter-mine the antibiotic sensitivity of Staphylococcus aureus in peritoneal dialysis peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 2010; 30:652–6.

21. Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, Read RR, Morck D, Buret A. The Calgary biofilm device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:1771–6.

22. Ceri H, Olson M, Morck D, Storey D, Read R, Buret A, et al. The MBEC assay system: multiple equivalent biofilms for antibiotic and biocide susceptibil-ity testing. Meth Enzymol 2001; 337:377–85.

23. Manley HJ, Bridwell DL, Elwell RJ, Bailie GR. Influence of peritoneal dialysate flow rate on the pharmacokinetics of cefazolin. Perit Dial Int 2003; 23:469–74.

24. Manley HJ, Bailie GR. Treatment of peritonitis in APD: pharmacokinetic principles. Semin Dial 2002; 15:418–21.

25. Manley HJ, Bailie GR, Frye RF, McGoldrick MD. Intravenous vancomycin pharmacokinetics in automated peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 2001; 21:378–85.

26. Fish R, Nipah R, Jones C, Finney H, Fan SL. Intraperitoneal vancomycin concentrations during peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis: correla-tion with serum levels. Perit Dial Int 2012; 32:332–8.

27. Mulhern JG, Braden GL, O’Shea MH, Madden RL, Lipkowitz GS, Germain MJ. Trough serum vancomycin levels predict the relapse of gram-positive peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1995; 25:611–5.

28. Stevenson S, Wen T, Cho Y, Mudge DW, Hawley CM, Badve SV, et al. The role of monitoring vancomycin levels in patients with peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 2015; 35:222–8.

29. Blunden M, Zeitlin D, Ashman N, Fan SL. Single UK centre experience on the treatment of PD peritonitis-antibiotic levels and outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22(6):1714–9.

30. Schaefer F, Klaus G, Muller-Wiefel O; The Mid-European Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group (MEPPS). Intermittent versus continuous intraperi-toneal gylocpeptide/ceftazidime treatment in children with peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999; 136–45.

31. Dahlan R, Lavoie S, Biyani M, Zimmerman D, McCormick BB. A high serum vancomycin level is associated with lower relapse rates in coagulase-negative staphylococcal peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 2014; 34:232–5.

32. Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, Moellering R, Craig W, Billeter M, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infec-tious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health-Sys Pharm 2009; 66:82–98.

33. Hota S, Crooke P, Hotchkiss J. A Monte Carlo analysis of peritoneal anti-microbial pharmacokinetics. Adv Exp Med Biol 2011; 696:401–10.

34. Kim K, Hwang YH, Ro H, Oh YK, Kim MG, Yu KS, et al. Pharmacokinetic profiles of ceftazidime after intravenous administration in patients undergoing automated peritoneal dialysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55:2523–7.

35. Sisterhen LL, Stowe CD, Farrar HC, Blaszak CK, Blaszak RT. Disposition of ceftazidime after intraperitoneal administration in adolescent patients receiving continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 47:503–8.

36. Golper T. Intermittent versus continuous antibiotics for PD-related peri-tonitis. Perit Dial Int 1997; 17:11–2.

37. Barclay ML, Begg EJ, Chambers ST. Adaptive resistance following single doses of gentamicin in a dynamic in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36:1951–7.

38. Daikos GL, Jackson GG, Lolans VT, Livermore DM. Adaptive resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics from first-exposure down-regulation. J Infect Dis 1990; 162:414–20.

39. Vas SI. Single daily dose of aminoglycosides in the treatment of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 1993; 13(Suppl 2):S355–6.

40. Barclay ML, Kirkpatrick CM, Begg EJ. Once daily aminoglycoside therapy. Is it less toxic than multiple daily doses and how should it be monitored? Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 36:89–98.

41. Gendeh B, Said H, Gibb AG, Aziz NS, Zahir ZM. Gentamicin administration via peritoneal dialysis fluid: the risk of ototoxicity. J Laryngol Otol 1991; 999–1001.

42. van der Hulst RJ, Boeschoten EW, Nielsen FW, Struijk DG, Dreschler WD, Tange RA. Ototoxicity monitoring with ultra-high frequency audiometry in peritoneal dialysis patients treated with vancomycin or gentamicin. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1991; 53:19–22.

43. Nikolaidis P, Vas S, Lawson V, Kennedy-Vosu L, Bernard A, Abraham G, et al. Is intraperitoneal tobramycin ototoxic in CAPD patients? Perit Dial Int 1991; 11:156–61.

44. Gendeh BS, Said H, Gibb AG, Aziz NS, Kong N, Zahir ZM. Gentamicin ototoxicity in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J Laryngol Otol 1993; 681–5.

45. Tang W, Cho Y, Hawley CM, Badve SV, Johnson DW. The role of monitoring gentamicin levels in patients with gram-negative peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 2014; 34:219–26.

46. Imada A, Itagaki N, Hasegawa H, Horiuchi A. Comparative study of the pharmacokinetics of various β-lactams after intravenous and intra-peritoneal administration in patients undergoing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Drugs 1988; 82–7.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]




http://ww

w.pdiconnect.com

/D

ownloaded from

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/




review of antibiotic dosing with peritonitis in apdmancini and. piraino . july19 – vol. 39, no. 4...

Documents