Pharmacokinetics of Tobramycin Administered at the Beginning of Intermittent Hemodialysis Session (ESRD Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a renewed interest in the successful use of aminoglycosides due to increasing resistance in gram-negative infections. Few studies to date have examined the pharmacokinetics (PK) of intradialytic infusions of tobramycin. This study sought to characterize the pharmacokinetic profile of intradialytically administered tobramycin in infected patients receiving chronic intermittent hemodialysis and to determine whether it is possible to achieve favorable PK targets. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: In this prospective pharmacokinetic study, a single dose (5 mg/kg) of tobramycin was administered intradialytically to 11 noncritically ill patients undergoing chronic intermittent hemodialysis. Blood samples were collected at selected time to determine tobramycin serum concentrations. The PK analysis was performed using Phoenix™ NLME. The efficacy exposure outcome for nonsevere gram-negative infections sensitive to tobramycin with a minimum inhibitory concentration ≤1 were maximum concentration (Cmax ≥ 10 mg/L) and area under the curve (AUC24 h > 30 mg⋅h/L). For toxicity, the goal was to identify plasma trough concentrations <2 mg/L. RESULTS: were 13.1 (1.3) mg/L, 1.32 (0.47) mg/L, and 61 (23) mg⋅h/L, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation run with 1000 virtual patients showed that a 5 mg/kg dose of tobramycin administered intradialytically can outperformed the usual low-dose postdialysis dosing (80% meeting all targets versus <1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A single high dose of tobramycin can achieve favorable PK outcome when administered using intradialytic infusions in hemodialysis patients. This practical dosing regimen may represent an effective and safer alternative to the usual dosing in the treatment of nonsevere gram-negative infections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".