Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Clinical Therapeutics

Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Polymyxin B from Clinical Samples

Christine J. Kubin, Brian C. Nelson, Cristina Miglis, Marc H. Scheetz, Nathaniel J. Rhodes, Sean N. Avedissian, Serge Cremers, Michael T. Yin
Christine J. Kubin
aDepartment of Pharmacy and Division of Infectious Diseases, New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian C. Nelson
bDepartment of Pharmacy, New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cristina Miglis
cMidwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc H. Scheetz
cMidwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marc H. Scheetz
Nathaniel J. Rhodes
cMidwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nathaniel J. Rhodes
Sean N. Avedissian
cMidwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sean N. Avedissian
Serge Cremers
dClinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Core Laboratory Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael T. Yin
eDivision of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01493-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A retrospective study was conducted in hospitalized patients receiving intravenous polymyxin B who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring during treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of intravenous polymyxin B in patients with variable total body weights and create a population model for clinical use. Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling analyses were performed. A total of 43 patients were included, and 70% of these patients were male. The median age was 58 years, and the median weight was 78 kg. The median polymyxin B dose was 180 mg/day or 2.8 mg/kg/day. A one-compartment model described the polymyxin B PK well with conditional mean parameter estimates of a clearance (CL) of 2.37 liters/h and a volume of distribution of 34.4 liters and can be employed for clinical population modeling. Total body weight was not significantly associated with CL (Akaike information criterion, 361.6 for the weight-based model versus 359.5 for the non-weight-based model). These data suggest that dosing according to patient body weight requires further exploration. Greater study is needed to assess the relationships between polymyxin B exposures and efficacy and toxicity.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, the polymyxins have emerged as useful agents in the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens (1). The polymyxins, however, have not been subject to the scrutiny of modern-day pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) studies. In addition, most of the data over the past 5 years have focused on colistin (i.e., polymyxin E). Colistin's pharmacokinetics have recently been defined and may be more complex than those of polymyxin B. Further, colistin pharmacodynamics may also pose problems, as colistin has been associated with more nephrotoxicity than polymyxin B (2–7). Thus, a better understanding of polymyxin B PK/PD is needed.

The current understanding of polymyxin B pharmacokinetics is based on four pharmacokinetic studies in a total of 60 patients (7–10). Collectively, these studies suggest that polymyxin B, unlike colistin, is not eliminated by the kidney and should not be adjusted for renal dysfunction. These studies are limited in the number of patients studied at extremes of body weight and in the loading doses given. Only one study was performed after pharmacokinetic data suggested that 3 mg/kg of body weight/day divided as a 1-h infusion every 12 h with no adjustment for renal dysfunction was optimal to achieve an area under the concentration-time curve for the free, unbound fraction of drug/MIC ratio of approximately 20 (7). As such, previous studies evaluated doses of <2 mg/kg/day with various infusion times ranging from 1 to 6 h for each dose (8, 9). The aim of this study was to develop a population model for common clinical use. The companion paper (11) assesses the clinical covariates regularly considered in polymyxin B dosing and explores the simulated exposures expected with various dosing schemes.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics.A total of 43 patients accounting for 134 polymyxin B plasma assays were included in the study. It should be noted that all 43 patients used for this study formed the 80% of the patient population used to develop the base model in the study described in the companion paper (11). The demographic and clinical information for the patients is summarized in Table 1. Most patients were male (70%), and the median age was 58 years. The median weight of the population was 78 kg, with the range being 40 kg to 126 kg and with 8 (19%) patients weighing greater than 100 kg and 12 (28%) weighing less than 60 kg. A polymyxin B loading dose was administered to 24 (56%) patients, and the median daily dose was 2.8 mg/kg/day. Polymyxin B was administered at the following dosing frequencies: twice daily, 32 (74%) patients; once daily, 8 (19%) patients; and every other day, 3 (7%) patients. Many patients (37%) had a creatinine clearance of <50 ml/min, with the creatinine clearance in 6 (14%) patients being <30 ml/min. The median duration of polymyxin B dosing was 13 days.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Characteristics of polymyxin B-treated patientsa

Population pharmacokinetic model.A one-compartment model described the polymyxin B pharmacokinetics better than a two-compartment model (Akaike information criterion [AIC], 356.7 and 361.2, respectively). In the one-compartment model, a combined error model minimized the residual variability compared to that achieved with a constant error model (AIC, 359.7 and 424.2, respectively). Final population pharmacokinetic parameters are shown in Table 2. The population estimates of the parameters clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (V) demonstrated acceptable precision, with the relative standard error (RSE) values being ≤10% and shrinkage being −1% and 9%, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Estimation of population PK parameters of polymyxin B in 43 adult patientsa

When the covariate model assessing total body weight (TBW) was fit, the model was not improved (AIC, 361.6 and 359.5, respectively). Model diagnostics of population weighted residuals, individual weighted residuals (IWRES), and quantile-quantile plots are displayed in Fig. 1. All diagnostic plots displayed adequate fits for the final model. Notably, normalized prediction distribution error values were distributed randomly with a normal distribution, and the predictions on the IWRES and population weighted residuals plots were generally centered on zero with constant variance. Figure 2 demonstrates the simulated polymyxin B concentrations (in milligrams per liter) and the associated probability distribution for the mean loading dose and the mean maintenance dose that the patients in this study received (i.e., 202.7 and 104.5 mg, respectively).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Diagnostic population weighted residuals (PWRES), individual weight residuals (IWRES), and normalized prediction distribution error (NPDE) plots as a function of time and population prediction (pred. y) plots, population density function (pdf) plots, and quantile-quantile plots (qqplot). cond. mean, conditional mean. Pink line, reference line for zero; black line (in third row of graphs), theoretic density; green line (in third row of graphs), empirical density.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Simulated polymyxin B concentrations (mg/liter) and associated probability distribution (proba) for the mean loading dose (202.7 mg) (A) and maintenance dose (104.5 mg) (B) in the regimens received by patients in the clinical cohort. Concentrations were generated every 30 min for 0 to 48 h.

DISCUSSION

This report describes polymyxin B pharmacokinetics in the largest patient population studied to date. Unlike previous studies, however, no relationship between total body weight and clearance was observed, implying that optimal dosing in obese patients should not be based on total body weight, as previously suggested (7). This is similar to the findings described in our companion paper (11), where we demonstrated through simulation that TBW should not be used for clinical dose selection, especially in repeated maintenance dosing.

Our study is the first to include a significant number of patients with extremes of body weight and obesity. A previous study included the findings for one patient weighing 41 kg and one patient weighing 250 kg, with the more obese patient also being confounded by renal replacement therapy (7). In our study, 8 patients weighed ≥100 kg and 5 patients weighed <50 kg. In addition, 12 patients had a total body weight greater than 30% above their ideal body weight. We found no impact of TBW on polymyxin B CL. Dosing in obese patients using total body weight may result in greater exposure to polymyxin B. Excess exposures have the potential to result in more acute kidney injury, as suggested by previous studies in which total daily doses exceeding 150 to 250 mg were associated with more nephrotoxicity (12–14).

This study has several limitations. First, one patient contributed concentrations that were outliers in the model. This was likely due to an incorrect documentation of the sampling time. The sample was documented as a trough concentration but appeared numerically to be a peak concentration relative to the other concentrations for this patient. We chose to include these data, even though their inclusion resulted in worse model fits. Second, only pharmacokinetic monitoring was performed, and clinical outcomes were not rigorously evaluated. Urinary polymyxin B concentrations were not measured, but it has already been established that the rate of urinary recovery of polymyxin B is low (7). Third, we excluded patients on renal replacement therapy and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and patients with cystic fibrosis to maintain the homogeneity of our population. Generalizing our findings to these populations is not possible. Lastly, the relatively sparse sampling from this study could have resulted in biased estimates of clearance. Additional studies are needed.

In conclusion, we have presented a reasonably large population pharmacokinetic study of polymyxin B in patients with variable body weights. Weight did not appear to affect clearance. This relationship is further explained in our companion paper (11). Our population model is translated into a freely available simulator that clinicians can use to estimate first polymyxin B exposures (see supplemental material). Further detailed studies linking pharmacokinetics to pharmacodynamic outcomes (i.e., efficacy and toxicity) are still needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design.A retrospective study of adult patients (≥18 years of age) admitted to New York-Presbyterian Hospital between January 2009 and December 2015 who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring of intravenous polymyxin B was conducted. The study was approved by the Columbia University Irving Medical Center Institutional Review Board with a waiver for informed consent and by Midwestern University for deidentified data analysis.

Inclusion required receipt of polymyxin B for treatment of a suspected or documented Gram-negative bacterial infection. Polymyxin B treatment, dose, and duration of use were ultimately at the discretion of the primary medical team; however, institutional dosing guidelines were provided to practitioners. Prior to 2014, institutional guidelines for polymyxin B dosing recommended dose adjustment for renal dysfunction, specifically, for an estimated creatinine clearance of less than 80 ml/min. Starting in 2014, dosing guidelines no longer recommended dose adjustments for renal dysfunction (1.5 mg/kg/dose every 12 h). Across all study years, loading doses of 2.5 to 3 mg/kg of total body weight were recommended for dosing of polymyxin B, with no specific maximum dose being recommended. The standard infusion time was 1 h but could be lengthened as needed to increase patient tolerability.

The following demographic and clinical data were collected from the electronic medical record: basic demographics; the type of infection; the bacterial organism targeted; the serum creatinine concentration prior to and during polymyxin B therapy; details of intravenous polymyxin B therapy, including the timing and concentration of every dose; the clinical resolution of infection; and any toxicity, including acute kidney injury or neurotoxicity. Only patients with at least two plasma polymyxin B assays were included. Cystic fibrosis patients and those receiving renal replacement therapy or treatment via some other extracorporeal device (e.g., extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) at the start of polymyxin B treatment or at the time of sampling were excluded from the analysis.

Blood samples for polymyxin B therapeutic drug monitoring were obtained on or after day 3 of therapy and prepared as plasma (15). Troughs were typically obtained within 60 min of a dose, and peaks were typically obtained 15 to 60 min after the end of the infusion. All samples included in the analysis for an individual patient were collected during the same dosing interval. Exact polymyxin B dosing times and blood collection times were documented for each patient. Polymyxin B concentrations were analyzed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method, as previously described (15). In brief, the lower limit of quantitation was 100 ng/ml.

Population pharmacokinetic modeling.A population pharmacokinetic model was developed and fit to the polymyxin B concentration-time data using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach with Monolix 2016R1 software (Lixoft, Orsay, France). Model parameters were estimated using the stochastic approximation expectation-maximization algorithm with a Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure to compute the maximum likelihood estimates for the final population pharmacokinetic parameters (16, 17). All parameters were assumed to be log normally distributed. One- and two-compartment models were tested on the basis of previous pharmacokinetic studies (7, 10, 18, 19). The log-likelihood ratio test was utilized to compare competing models. A P value of <0.05 was required for increased complexity with agreement from the Akaike information criterion (AIC). The two-compartment model was fit to the polymyxin B data, parameterized as CL (in liters per hour), V (in liters), the volume of distribution of the peripheral compartment (in liters), and intercompartmental clearance (in liters per hour).

Because polymyxin B is conventionally dosed on the basis of weight, the effect of total body weight on clearance was evaluated as follows: log(CLi) = log(CLpop) + beta · log[TBW(i)/70], where CLi and CLpop are the clearance of the individual and the population, respectively, and TBW(i) is the total body weight of the individual.

Retention of total body weight (TBW) as a covariate required an improved AIC. Constant and combined error models were explored to describe the residual unexplained variability of the finalized model. The final model was selected on the basis of minimization of AIC, visual assessment of goodness-of-fit plots (including quantile-quantile plots), the distribution of the population and individual weighted residuals, and the intersubject variability for the estimated pharmacokinetic parameters. Model-based values for CL and V were generated for each patient on the basis of the conditional mean estimate using the final pharmacokinetic model (20). Predicted polymyxin B plasma concentrations for the regimens with mean loading and nonloading doses within the clinical cohort were simulated using the R package Simulx (21). For each scenario, the mean population parameters and intersubject variabilities (i.e., omega values) were used to generate 2,000 PK exposure profiles using the mlxR package. See Supplemental Text S1 in the supplemental material for the mlxR code (22).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest related to this work.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 15 August 2017.
    • Returned for modification 12 September 2017.
    • Accepted 11 December 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 8 January 2018.
  • For a companion article on this topic, see https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01475-17.

  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01493-17.

  • Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gupta N,
    2. Limbago BM,
    3. Patel JB,
    4. Kallen AJ
    . 2011. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: epidemiology and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 53:60–67. doi:10.1093/cid/cir202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Zavascki AP,
    2. Nation RL
    . 2017. Nephrotoxicity of polymyxins: is there any difference between colistimethate and polymyxin B? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02319-16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02319-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Nation RL,
    2. Velkov T,
    3. Li J
    . 2014. Colistin and polymyxin B: peas in a pod, or chalk and cheese? Clin Infect Dis 59:88–94. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu213.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Rigatto MH,
    2. Oliveira MS,
    3. Perdigao-Neto LV,
    4. Levin AS,
    5. Carrilho CM,
    6. Tanita MT,
    7. Tuon FF,
    8. Cardoso DE,
    9. Lopes NT,
    10. Falci DR,
    11. Zavascki AP
    . 2016. Multicenter prospective cohort study of renal failure in patients treated with colistin versus polymyxin B. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:2443–2449. doi:10.1128/AAC.02634-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Akajagbor DS,
    2. Wilson SL,
    3. Shere-Wolfe KD,
    4. Dakum P,
    5. Charurat ME,
    6. Gilliam BL
    . 2013. Higher incidence of acute kidney injury with intravenous colistimethate sodium compared with polymyxin B in critically ill patients at a tertiary care medical center. Clin Infect Dis 57:1300–1303. doi:10.1093/cid/cit453.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Phe K,
    2. Lee Y,
    3. McDaneld PM,
    4. Prasad N,
    5. Yin T,
    6. Figueroa DA,
    7. Musick WL,
    8. Cottreau JM,
    9. Hu M,
    10. Tam VH
    . 2014. In vitro assessment and multicenter cohort study of comparative nephrotoxicity rates associated with colistimethate versus polymyxin B therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2740–2746. doi:10.1128/AAC.02476-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sandri AM,
    2. Landersdorfer CB,
    3. Jacob J,
    4. Boniatti MM,
    5. Dalarosa MG,
    6. Falci DR,
    7. Behle TF,
    8. Bordinhao RC,
    9. Wang J,
    10. Forrest A,
    11. Nation RL,
    12. Li J,
    13. Zavascki AP
    . 2013. Population pharmacokinetics of intravenous polymyxin B in critically ill patients: implications for selection of dosage regimens. Clin Infect Dis 57:524–531. doi:10.1093/cid/cit334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kwa AL,
    2. Lim TP,
    3. Low JG,
    4. Hou J,
    5. Kurup A,
    6. Prince RA,
    7. Tam VH
    . 2008. Pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B1 in patients with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 60:163–167. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.08.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Zavascki AP,
    2. Goldani LZ,
    3. Cao G,
    4. Superti SV,
    5. Lutz L,
    6. Barth AL,
    7. Ramos F,
    8. Boniatti MM,
    9. Nation RL,
    10. Li J
    . 2008. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous polymyxin B in critically ill patients. Clin Infect Dis 47:1298–1304. doi:10.1086/592577.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Thamlikitkul V,
    2. Dubrovskaya Y,
    3. Manchandani P,
    4. Ngamprasertchai T,
    5. Boonyasiri A,
    6. Babic JT,
    7. Tam VH
    . 2017. Dosing and pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B in patients with renal insufficiency. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e01337-16. doi:10.1128/AAC.01337-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Miglis C,
    2. Rhodes NJ,
    3. Avedissian S,
    4. Kubin CJ,
    5. Yin MT,
    6. Nelson B,
    7. Pai MP,
    8. Scheetz MH
    . 2018. Population pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B in acutely ill adult patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e01475-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.01475-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rigatto MH,
    2. Behle TF,
    3. Falci DR,
    4. Freitas T,
    5. Lopes NT,
    6. Nunes M,
    7. Costa LW,
    8. Zavascki AP
    . 2015. Risk factors for acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients treated with polymyxin B and influence of AKI on mortality: a multicentre prospective cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:1552–1557. doi:10.1093/jac/dku561.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tuon FF,
    2. Rigatto MH,
    3. Lopes CK,
    4. Kamei LK,
    5. Rocha JL,
    6. Zavascki AP
    . 2014. Risk factors for acute kidney injury in patients treated with polymyxin B or colistin methanesulfonate sodium. Int J Antimicrob Agents 43:349–352. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.12.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Nelson BC,
    2. Eiras DP,
    3. Gomez-Simmonds A,
    4. Loo AS,
    5. Satlin MJ,
    6. Jenkins SG,
    7. Whittier S,
    8. Calfee DP,
    9. Furuya EY,
    10. Kubin CJ
    . 2015. Clinical outcomes associated with polymyxin B dose in patients with bloodstream infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative rods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:7000–7006. doi:10.1128/AAC.00844-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Thomas TA,
    2. Broun EC,
    3. Abildskov KM,
    4. Kubin CJ,
    5. Horan J,
    6. Yin MT,
    7. Cremers S
    . 2012. High performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assay for polymyxin B1 and B2 in human plasma. Ther Drug Monit 34:398–405. doi:10.1097/FTD.0b013e31825c827a.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Delyon B,
    2. Lavielle V,
    3. Moulines E
    . 1999. Convergence of a stochastic approximation version of the EM algorithm. Ann Stat 27:94–128. doi:10.1214/aos/1018031103.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kuhn E,
    2. Lavielle M
    . 2005. Maximum likelihood estimation in nonlinear mixed effects models. Comput Stat Data Analysis 49:1020–1038. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2004.07.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ziv G,
    2. Nouws JF,
    3. van Ginneken CA
    . 1982. The pharmacokinetics and tissue levels of polymyxin B, colistin and gentamicin in calves. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 5:45–58. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2885.1982.tb00497.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kwa AL,
    2. Abdelraouf K,
    3. Low JG,
    4. Tam VH
    . 2011. Pharmacokinetics of polymyxin B in a patient with renal insufficiency: a case report. Clin Infect Dis 52:1280–1281. doi:10.1093/cid/cir137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Chew KL,
    2. La MV,
    3. Lin RTP,
    4. Teo JWP
    . 2017. Colistin and polymyxin B susceptibility testing for carbapenem-resistant and mcr-positive Enterobacteriaceae: comparison of Sensititre, MicroScan, Vitek 2, and Etest with broth microdilution. J Clin Microbiol 55:2609–2616. doi:10.1128/JCM.00268-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lavielle M
    . mlxR: simulation of longitudinal data. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://cran.r-project.org/package=mlxR. Accessed 20 July 2017.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Lavielle M
    . mlxR 3.2. Inria Xpop Team, La Chesnay, France. http://simulx.webpopix.org/mlxr/. Accessed 20 July 2017.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Polymyxin B from Clinical Samples
Christine J. Kubin, Brian C. Nelson, Cristina Miglis, Marc H. Scheetz, Nathaniel J. Rhodes, Sean N. Avedissian, Serge Cremers, Michael T. Yin
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2018, 62 (3) e01493-17; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01493-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Polymyxin B from Clinical Samples
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Polymyxin B from Clinical Samples
Christine J. Kubin, Brian C. Nelson, Cristina Miglis, Marc H. Scheetz, Nathaniel J. Rhodes, Sean N. Avedissian, Serge Cremers, Michael T. Yin
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2018, 62 (3) e01493-17; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01493-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

polymyxin B
population PK
dosing
polymyxins

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596