Post‐hemodialysis dosing of 1 vs. 2 g of ceftazidime in anuric end‐stage renal disease patients on low‐flux dialysis and its pharmacodynamic implications on clinical use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ceftazidime is a cost-effective antimicrobial against Gram-negative pathogens associated with sepsis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) hemodialysis patients with potential for wider use with the advent of ceftazidime-avibactam. Dosing ceftazidime post-hemodialysis appears attractive and convenient, but limited in vivo data on pharmacodynamic efficacy (PE) attainment, defined as >70% of the interdialytic period drug concentrations exceed susceptible pathogens minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) (%TMIC), warrants further assessment. We therefore evaluated PE and tolerability of 1 against 2 g regime in anuric ESRD patients on low-flux hemodialysis. Two doses of 1 or 2 g ceftazidime were administered post-hemodialysis prior to 48- and 72-hour interdialytic intervals in ESRD inpatients without active infections. Peak and trough concentrations (mg/L) were assayed using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Proportion of patients achieving PE for known pathogens with MICs ≤ 8 mg/L and adverse effects were assessed. Six (43%) and eight (57%) adult patients received 1 and 2 g dose, respectively. Median (25th-75th percentile), peak, 48- and 72-hour trough ceftazidime concentrations were 78 (60-98) vs. 158 (128-196), 37 (23-37) vs. 49 (39-71), and 13 (12-20) vs. 26 (21-41) mg/L, respectively, resulting in 100% TMIC for both doses. One patient on the 1-g dose experienced mild pruritus. Reliable and safe PE attainment over both 48- and 72-hour interdialytic interval was achievable with 1 g of ceftazidime dosed post-hemodialysis. The 2 g dose was equally effective and well tolerated but may not be necessary. These findings need validation in non-anuric patients, high-flux hemodialysis, and during avibactam co-administration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".