Skip to main content
Download PDF

International survey of antibiotic dosing and monitoring in adult intensive care units

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 241 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In recent years, numerous dosing studies have been conducted to optimize therapeutic antibiotic exposures in patients with serious infections. These studies have led to the inclusion of dose optimization recommendations in international clinical practice guidelines. The last international survey describing dosing, administration and monitoring of commonly prescribed antibiotics for critically ill patients was published in 2015 (ADMIN-ICU 2015). This study aimed to describe the evolution of practice since this time.

Methods

A cross-sectional international survey distributed through professional societies and networks was used to obtain information on practices used in the dosing, administration and monitoring of vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem and aminoglycosides.

Results

A total of 538 respondents (71% physicians and 29% pharmacists) from 409 hospitals in 45 countries completed the survey. Vancomycin was mostly administered as an intermittent infusion, and loading doses were used by 74% of respondents with 25 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg the most favoured doses for intermittent and continuous infusions, respectively. Piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem were most frequently administered as an extended infusion (42% and 51%, respectively). Therapeutic drug monitoring was undertaken by 90%, 82%, 43%, and 39% of respondents for vancomycin, aminoglycosides, piperacillin/tazobactam, and meropenem, respectively, and was more frequently performed in high-income countries. Respondents rarely used dosing software to guide therapy in clinical practice and was most frequently used with vancomycin (11%).

Conclusions

We observed numerous changes in practice since the ADMIN-ICU 2015 survey was conducted. Beta-lactams are more commonly administered as extended infusions, and therapeutic drug monitoring use has increased, which align with emerging evidence.

Background

Treating serious infections in the intensive care unit (ICU) can be complex and challenging [1]. Current antibiotic dosing risks a suboptimal therapeutic response in a large proportion of critically ill patients [2,3,4,5]. Additionally, the likelihood of developing antibiotic resistance may increase when specific pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets are not achieved [6].

Product information-derived dosing has limited application in critically ill patients given the altered PKs and challenges in pathogen susceptibility to antibiotics, relative to other population groups in the hospital [7]. Dosing modalities available to clinicians to optimize antibiotic dosing in the critically ill are growing, including prolonged infusions for beta-lactams; therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM); and dosing software [8, 9].

International surveys have been conducted to measure the translation of antibiotic optimization research into clinical practice [10,11,12,13,14,15]. The last large-scale international survey of antibiotic dosing and monitoring in ICUs was published in 2015 (ADMIN-ICU 2015) with respondents describing large variations in clinical practice [10]. Since this time, literature supporting alternative antibiotic dosing strategies has progressed and led to guidelines endorsing PK/PD focused antibiotic dosing [16, 17]. In addition, TDM and dosing software has become more readily available to clinicians [9, 18, 19]. Therefore, an up-to-date survey describing the evolution of practice is highly relevant to understand diversity and uptake of emerging evidence.

The aim of this international cross-sectional study was to survey clinicians working in ICUs worldwide to describe contemporary practices in dosing, administration and monitoring of commonly prescribed antibiotics including glycopeptides, beta-lactams, and aminoglycosides.

Methods

A panel of international experts formed the writing committee and developed the survey, building upon the foundations of the ADMIN-ICU 2015 survey [10]. The survey included multiple choice and 5-point Likert scale questions, and clinical vignettes to describe contemporary practices used in the dosing, administration and monitoring of commonly prescribed antibiotics for critically ill patients.

The survey was constructed to describe professional characteristics of the respondent. Additionally, the survey collected details of the respondent’s work location and access to resources associated with dosing, administration and monitoring of commonly prescribed antibiotics in the ICU. The country in which respondents worked was categorized by region and economy according to World Bank criteria [20].

The investigators developed clinical vignettes to ascertain information regarding an individual’s practices used for dosing, administering and monitoring of vancomycin, beta-lactams, and the respondent's choice of aminoglycoside. Clinical vignette responses were based on a septic 35-year-old patient, weighing 80 kg with a height of 1.78 m and normal renal function (creatinine clearance = 90 mL/min), with an additional scenario of a 200 kg patient selected for vancomycin. The use of a loading dose (LD), maintenance dose (MD) and frequency, infusion duration, TDM utilization, PK/PD target and dose adjustment method used in clinical practice was surveyed.

A range of infusion durations were defined as presented in Additional file 1: Table S1. The full text of the survey is available in Additional file 1: Table S2.

From August to December 2021, an open invitation to answer the online survey hosted on the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap©) platform was accessible to respondents. Invitations to participate were distributed to members of professional societies as listed in the acknowledgements. Additionally, national coordinators for this study distributed the survey via local networks. Distribution strategies were chosen to maximize the breadth of respondents, to provide an adequate international respondent sample. A reminder email was sent after one and three months. A cross-sectional global representation of clinicians involved in the treatment of critically ill infections were the target of this survey. No incentive was offered to respondents to complete the survey.

The data were extracted from REDCap© into Microsoft Excel®. Members from the writing committee (P.W, A.T and J.A.R) conducted a consensus review of all data. Data were excluded from the final analysis as described in Additional file 1: Table S3. The mean value was used when a range rather than a specific value was entered. The exception to this approach was for trough concentrations (the highest value was used), and peak concentrations (the lowest value was used).

Data were expressed as median values with inter-quartile range for continuous variables, and as numbers and/or percentages for categorical variables. Data derived from ADMIN-ICU 2015 were also expressed in this way. A sub-group analysis was performed to determine any difference in TDM utilization or beta-lactam prolonged infusion (continuous or extended infusion) administration between academic hospitals (university or university affiliated) and general hospitals. A Chi-square test was used to make this determination. Descriptive summary statistics were produced (using IBM SPSS Statistics v27) to present survey findings.

Results

Demographics

A total of 538 respondents from 409 hospitals in 292 cities in 45 countries completed the survey. Respondents from a variety of regions were represented, including Europe and Central Asia (30%, 163/538), Middle East and North Africa (23%, 126/538), and East Asia and Pacific (17%, 91/538). Most respondents were from a high-income country (HIC) (54%, 288/538), followed by upper-middle-income country (UMIC) (23%, 125/538), with 23% (125/538) from either a low-income country (LIC) or lower-middle-income country (LMIC) (see Additional file 1: Table S4). Table 1 presents respondent demographics, with most being ICU specialists, working in mixed Medical-Surgical closed ICUs within University or University-affiliated Hospitals.

Table 1 Respondent demographics
Full size table

Clinical vignette results

Vancomycin

Respondents preferenced administering vancomycin as an intermittent infusion (II), with 22% preferencing continuous infusion (CI) (see Fig. 1). Most respondents administered a LD (74%, 300/403), with LDs for II and CI dosing used by 70% (300/403) and 89% (80/90) of respondents, respectively (see Additional file 1: Table S5). The median LD and MD administered for II and CI are presented in Fig. 2. In the 200 kg patient scenario, most respondents capped the LD (72%, 366/508).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Infusion duration and TDM utilization according to antibiotics. Abbreviations: TDM, therapeutic drug monitoring n, number; %, percentage

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Dosing according to A, vancomycin loading dose (LD); B, vancomycin maintenance dose (MD); C, amikacin*; D, gentamicin*; E, tobramycin*. Values presented as median (IQR), Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; loading dose; II, intermittent infusion, CI, continuous infusion; ABW, actual body weight, IBW, ideal body weight; AdjBW, adjusted body weight; MD; maintenance dose; n, number; *, once daily dosing

Full size image

Respondents from HICs more frequently administered LDs (80%) as compared to LMICs and LICs (61%, and 17%, respectively). Furthermore, vancomycin II MDs were larger in HICs as compared to LMICs and LICs (see Additional file 1: Table S5). Vancomycin TDM was used by most respondents (90%) (see Fig. 1), and was more often used in HICs (see Additional file 1: Table S5). Respondents from academic hospitals were more likely to perform vancomycin TDM than those from general hospitals (92% vs. 86%, p = 0.049), (see Additional file 1: Table S6).

When vancomycin was administered as an II, a trough PK/PD target of 15–20 mg/L was most common, with 21% of respondents targeting an area under the 24 h concentration–time curve (AUC) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio of 400–600 mg·h/L (see Table 2). When vancomycin was administered as an CI, a concentration at steady state (Css) PK/PD target of 20–25 mg/L was most common, with 13% aiming for an AUC/MIC of 400–600 mg·h/L (see Table 2).

Table 2 TDM utilization according to antibiotic
Full size table

Vancomycin dose adjustments were most frequently determined by the clinical judgement of the treating physician (57%), by dosing guidelines (33%) and by linear adjustment post-TDM (31%) (see Table 3).

Table 3 Dose adjustment method according to antibiotics
Full size table

Piperacillin/tazobactam

Piperacillin/tazobactam was most often administered as an extended infusion (EI) (42%) followed by II (36%) and CI (14%) (see Fig. 1). The use of prolonged infusions was comparable between academic and general hospitals (see Additional file 1: Table S6). A LD was preferred by respondents administering an EI (62%) or CI (84%). Regardless of infusion duration, the median LD and MD per 24 h was 4.5 g and 18.5 g, respectively. TDM was performed by 43% of respondents (see Fig. 1) with most measuring a trough concentration at steady state. TDM was performed most often in Sub-Saharan Africa (71%), and Europe and Central Asia (60%), with only 7% usage in North America (see Additional file 1: Table S5). Respondents from academic hospitals were more likely to perform TDM than those from general hospitals (50% vs. 34%, p = 0.001), (see Additional file 1: Table S6). The most common PK/PD target was 100% time where the unbound concentration remained above the MIC as a percentage of the dosing interval (100% fT > MIC) (36%), followed by 100% fT > 4xMIC (23%). When assessing EI and CI only, the most common PK/PD target remained 100% fT > MIC.

Meropenem

Most respondents preferred to administer meropenem as an EI (51%), followed by II (38%) and CI (7%) (see Fig. 1). The use of prolonged infusions was comparable between academic and general hospitals (see Additional file 1: Table S6). Most respondents preferred a loading dose for EI and CI (62% and 92%, respectively) commonly dosed at 2 g. The median MD per 24 h according to infusion duration is presented in Additional file 1: Table S7. TDM was performed by 39% of respondents (see Fig. 1), with most measuring a trough concentration at steady state. TDM was performed most often in Europe and Central Asia (58%) and South Asia (55%), with only 7% usage in North America (see Additional file 1: Table S5). Respondents from academic hospitals were more likely to perform TDM than those from general hospitals (44% vs. 32%, p = 0.014), (see Additional file 1: Table S6). The most common PK/PD target was 100% fT > MIC (28%,) followed by 100% fT > 4xMIC (25%) (see Table 2). When assessing EI and CI only, the most common PK/PD target remained 100% fT > MIC.

Beta-lactam dose adjustments were most frequently determined by the clinical judgement of the treating physician (57%), followed by product information (31%) and pharmacist recommendation (31%) (see Table 3).

Aminoglycosides

Most respondents preferred to administer aminoglycosides as a once daily infusion (85%, 331/390) over 30–60 min (II) (92%, 314/342). Gentamicin was the preferred aminoglycoside prescribed (47%, 149/317), followed by amikacin (40%, 128/317), and tobramycin (13%, 40/317). Once daily dosing of aminoglycosides was based on actual body weight by most respondents in our 80 kg patient scenario, with dosing strategies presented in Fig. 2.

TDM was performed by 82% of respondents (see Fig. 1). TDM was most frequently performed in HICs (90%) (see Additional file 1: Table S5); however, utilization was comparable between academic and general hospitals (see Additional file 1: Table S6). Most respondents (53%) recommended the first sample be taken as a trough, and 37% recommended a peak. When a peak was recommended, 75% of respondents would sample a peak and trough (see Table 2).

The median peak and trough concentration targets are presented in Additional file 1: Table S7. If the peak concentration was below the target peak, 45% of respondents would not increase the subsequent dose. Conversely, if the trough concentration was above the target trough, most respondents would either decrease the subsequent dose (38%), or extend the dosing frequency (33%) (see Table 3). The most common PK/PD target was peak-to-MIC ratio (Cmax/MIC) (43%), and 34% of respondents were unsure of the PK/PD target (see Table 2). Clinical judgement of the treating physician was the most common method of adjusting aminoglycoside doses (52%), followed by Pharmacist recommendation (39%) (see Table 3).

Dosing software

Dosing software was used by 11%, 3%, and 8% of respondents to adjust vancomycin, beta-lactam, and aminoglycoside doses, respectively (see Table 3). For vancomycin, dosing software was more commonly used in North America (21%), and in HICs (17%). For beta-lactams, dosing software was most frequently used in Europe and Central Asia (5%), and in LMICs (5%). Dosing software utilization for aminoglycoside therapy was most prevalent in East Asia and the Pacific (18%), and in HICs (12%) (see Additional file 1: Table S5). When dosing software was used for vancomycin, 48% of respondents targeted an AUC/MIC ratio, while the majority (52%) preferenced a trough target. A Cmax/MIC target was preferred by respondents using dosing software to guide aminoglycoside therapy (56%), as opposed to AUC/MIC target (44%).

Discussion

We describe the effectiveness of knowledge translational antibiotic dosing and monitoring strategies used to treat serious infections as the evidence has accumulated over the last 7-years. We found increased use of vancomycin and beta-lactam LDs, and that vancomycin trough or Css PK/PD targets are preferred. HICs are more likely to administer a vancomycin LD and perform TDM for vancomycin and aminoglycoside therapy. Beta-lactam infusions are now predominantly administered as an EI. TDM is increasing in clinical practice, especially in academic hospitals. Dosing software is uncommonly used.

Vancomycin

Vancomycin LDs are recommended to achieve rapid target attainment and are supported in the 2020 Consensus Guideline of vancomycin therapeutic monitoring for serious MRSA infections [21]. It is concerning that 25% of respondents omitted a LD, and that LD omissions were even more apparent in respondents from LMICs and LICs. The LD specified by respondents did conform with the 2020 guideline recommendation; however, in our obese patient scenario, the median LD was less than the capped loading dose recommended in the Consensus Guideline (3000 mg) and may delay achieving adequate vancomycin exposure [21]. In comparison with ADMIN-ICU 2015, we found an increased use of vancomycin LDs (74% vs 65%) (see Additional file 1: Table S7) [10]. Our findings suggest that strategies to increase the use of appropriate vancomycin LDs are required.

Although respondents from HICs administered larger MDs, all median MDs aligned with the consensus guideline dosage range, regardless of the economy of the country [21].

Most respondents administered vancomycin as an II, which aligns with contemporary guidelines [21]. In comparison with ADMIN-ICU 2015, the most common method of administration remains II; however, CI usage has decreased from 31 to 22% (see Additional file 1: Table S7). Our findings on vancomycin infusion duration were similar to a recent survey of German ICUs [22]. However, other recent surveys have reported prolonged or continuous vancomycin infusion use in approximately 50% of cases [23, 24].

TDM was the preferred dosing strategy (90%) to guide vancomycin dosing in our study. This aligns with the Consensus Guideline [21], and is an increase from 82% in ADMIN-ICU 2015 (see Additional file 1: Table S7) [10]. Our findings were similar to a 2020 survey, which found that 89% of respondents used TDM to guide vancomycin dosing [23]. The majority of respondents in the 2020 survey were from teaching hospitals, and we found increased use of TDM in respondents from academic hospitals. Other surveys have shown rates of TDM use closer to 75%, where the proportion of respondents from teaching hospitals are either lower or unknown [22, 25].

Interestingly, only 11% of respondents used dosing software, even though it is the recommended approach in the Consensus Guideline and has been shown to improve target attainment and reduce nephrotoxicity compared to a trough-guided approach [21, 26]. Adoption of a dosing software approach was most prevalent in North America (21%), which may reflect early uptake of the Consensus Guideline; which was developed by American professional societies [21].

The vancomycin PK/PD target for S. aureus infections is established as an AUC/MIC of 400–600 mg·h/L [27]. However, historically, a trough target has been supported by guidelines [21, 27]. This recommended shift in approach was not routinely observed in our study, with most respondents targeting either a trough or Css range. This finding is not unexpected given the challenges clinicians likely face to implement AUC/MIC monitoring in clinical practice [28]. As with dosing software uptake, an AUC/MIC approach was most frequently used in North America (34%), again likely due to the American-derived Consensus Guidelines [21].

Beta-lactams

Beta-lactam LDs were mostly used for EI and CIs, which aligns with the 2021 surviving sepsis campaign recommendation [16]. However, nearly 40% of respondents did not recommend a LD prior to administering an EI, which may delay adequate drug exposure [29]. We found a significant shift toward beta-lactam EI use, which aligns with contemporary evidence, guideline recommendations and is associated with a short-term mortality benefit [16, 18, 30, 31]. Prolonged infusions were consistently favoured in both academic and general hospitals. Other recent surveys of mostly European or Columbian respondents also favoured prolonged infusion of beta-lactams [23, 25]. However, findings from national surveys in England and China favoured intermittent infusions [24, 32]. Variability in infusion duration was seen in our study depending on the region, highlighting inconsistency in practice globally. In comparison with ADMIN-ICU 2015 findings, piperacillin/tazobactam EI and CI use has doubled, and meropenem EI use has increased from 28 to 51% (see Additional file 1: Table S7).

Uptake of beta-lactam TDM varied markedly depending on region, with large variability observed even within HICs. However, TDM utilization was more prevalent in academic hospitals. Future exploration of contributing factors to such variability should be undertaken. The use of TDM has increased from approximately 10% in ADMIN-ICU 2015 to around 40% in our study (see Additional file 1: Table S7) [10]. Recent largely European surveys reported 17–52% of respondents had access to beta-lactam TDM [22, 23, 33], with one French survey reporting systematic beta-lactam TDM use in 38% of respondents [33]. Increased uptake of beta-lactam TDM likely reflects the emerging evidence of a TDM-guided approach in terms of achieving pre-defined therapeutic concentrations and its inclusion in contemporary guidelines to treat serious infections [16, 18]. However, definitive clinical evidence supporting a TDM approach is still lacking in terms of patient outcomes [34].

Only 3% of respondents used dosing software to guide beta-lactam therapy. Besides a recent survey that reported 26.8% beta-lactam dosing software use in Columbian ICUs [25], uptake of beta-lactam dosing software use remains to be determined. The evidence to support a dosing software strategy is sparse; however, promising results in terms of achieving PK/PD targets have been demonstrated [9], and further investigation is required.

The most common PK/PD target for beta-lactams (regardless of infusion duration) was 100% fT > MIC. This target has been associated with improved clinical efficacy compared to lower drug exposure targets in patients with serious infections and is the supported PK/PD target in a recent international guideline for the management of sepsis and septic shock [4, 16].

Aminoglycosides

Aminoglycosides were mostly administered as a once daily II, which aligns with contemporary guidelines [16, 18, 35]. However, 15% of respondents preferred divided daily dose administration, and risks ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity [36]. In comparison with our results, growing evidence supports even higher aminoglycoside doses in patients with serious infections to achieve adequate peak concentrations [37,38,39,40].

TDM-guided aminoglycoside dosing is recommended in contemporary guidelines [16, 18]. In our study, 82% of respondents used TDM to guide aminoglycoside dosing, with similar rates observed in both academic and general hospitals. The use of TDM for aminoglycosides remains similar to the findings of the ADMIN-ICU 2015 survey (see Additional file 1: Table S7) and is consistent with the findings of a recent survey [23]. Dosing software, however, was only used by approximately 8% of respondents, with highest usage in HICs and in the East Asia and Pacific region (18%). Contemporary guidelines recommend the use of dosing software [18], and this dosing strategy has been shown to reduce both hospital length of stay and rates of nephrotoxicity [41]. Further evaluation of this dosing strategy is required.

Our results showed that a Cmax/MIC target for aminoglycosides was most frequently used, with aminoglycoside peak and trough targets comparable with the ADMIN-ICU 2015 findings (see Additional file 1: Table S7) [10]. However, the peak targets were insufficient to achieve a Cmax/MIC ratio of > 8–10, which is a well-established marker of clinical success for aminoglycoside dosing [42, 43]. Of note, we observed that 34% of respondents were unsure of the PK/PD targets for aminoglycosides which may be due to decreasing use of aminoglycosides in favour of other agents over recent years.

There are several limitations to our study. Firstly, the electronic survey was broadly distributed, with no means to measure how many health professionals had the opportunity to participate in the survey, and no means to measure the response rate. Therefore, non-response bias may be present and skew the results. However, the large sample across many institutions and countries may minimize this bias.

Secondly, generalizing the results is difficult given the global regions' weighting. To mitigate this limitation, the authors ensured the survey was distributed widely via professional bodies and national coordinators, through the various regions.

Thirdly, de-duplication of respondents from the same hospital has not been possible and may influence the results presented. However, the focus of this study was primarily on the individual clinician’s practice and given the number of hospitals represented as a percentage of total respondents (409/538, 76%), this influence is unlikely meaningful.

Fourthly, it is plausible, although unlikely, that changes in practice observed in this study as compared to ADMIN-ICU 2015 were due to sampling a different cohort of respondents, as opposed to representing practice change over time. All data collected were de-identified as required during our ethics approval process. Therefore, it was not possible to report respondents who completed both ADMIN-ICU surveys. However, the survey samples are large enough to infer that they are likely representative of true practice.

Fifthly, the use of a simple clinical vignette may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, if a patient exhibited augmented renal clearance or developed renal failure, respondents may have been more likely to recommend TDM or prolonged infusions. The simple clinical vignette was selected to be consistent with ADMIN-ICU 2015 in order to compare findings.

Finally, the survey responses may not align with those made in clinical practice based on an actual patient and their inevitable complexities. However, a key objective of this study was to characterize changes in practice since the ADMIN-ICU 2015, which was subject to the same limitations and hence comparable. Although, differences in respondent demographics were apparent in the present study, with less experienced respondents and more pharmacists included.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, importantly, we present contemporary dosing, administration and monitoring of a selection of antibiotics used for serious infections and highlighted changes in practice over the last 7-years and how current practice aligns with contemporary evidence and guidelines. Although large variation in dosing and monitoring practices were observed, there have been significant clinical practice changes aligning with contemporary evidence and guidelines. Most notably, beta-lactams are now most commonly administered as an EI, with TDM use increasing in clinical practice. The authors believe that observational methods could be used to better understand current antibiotic dosing practices in this patient cohort on a global scale. This would increase confidence in the findings of this study. Additionally, future research is needed to assess the impact of antibiotic dosing strategies on important patient-centred outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

ICU:

Intensive care unit

PK:

Pharmacokinetics

PD:

Pharmacodynamics

TDM:

Therapeutic drug monitoring

LD:

Loading dose

MD:

Maintenance dose

REDCap©:

Research electronic data capture

HIC:

High-income country

UMIC:

Upper-middle-income country

LMIC:

Lower-middle-income country

LIC:

Low-income country

II:

Intermittent infusion

CI:

Continuous infusion

AUC:

Area under the 24-h concentration–time curve

MIC:

Minimum inhibitory concentration

EI:

Extended infusion

%fT > MIC:

% Time where the unbound concentration remained above the MIC as a percentage of the dosing interval

Cmax:

Peak concentration

Css:

Concentration at steady state

References

  1. Vincent J-L, Sakr Y, Singer M, Martin-Loeches I, Machado FR, Marshall JC, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of infection among patients in intensive care units in 2017. JAMA. 2020;323(15):1478–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Wong G, Briscoe S, McWhinney B, Ally M, Ungerer J, Lipman J, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of beta-lactam antibiotics in the critically ill: direct measurement of unbound drug concentrations to achieve appropriate drug exposures. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(11):3087–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blot S, Koulenti D, Akova M, Bassetti M, De Waele JJ, Dimopoulos G, et al. Does contemporary vancomycin dosing achieve therapeutic targets in a heterogeneous clinical cohort of critically ill patients? Data from the multinational DALI study. Crit Care (London, England). 2014;18(3):R99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, Bassetti M, De Waele JJ, Dimopoulos G, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current ß-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1072–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. De Waele JJ, Carrette S, Carlier M, Stove V, Boelens J, Claeys G, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring-based dose optimisation of piperacillin and meropenem: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(3):380–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tam VH, Schilling AN, Neshat S, Poole K, Melnick DA, Coyle EA. Optimization of meropenem minimum concentration/MIC ratio to suppress in vitro resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(12):4920–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Roberts JA. Using PK/PD to optimize antibiotic dosing for critically ill patients. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12(12):2070–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberts JA, Ulldemolins M, Roberts MS, McWhinney B, Ungerer J, Paterson DL, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of beta-lactams in critically ill patients: proof of concept. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;36(4):332–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heil EL, Nicolau DP, Farkas A, Roberts JA, Thom KA. Pharmacodynamic target attainment for cefepime, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-based dosing calculator in critically ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tabah A, De Waele J, Lipman J, Zahar JR, Cotta MO, Barton G, et al. The ADMIN-ICU survey: a survey on antimicrobial dosing and monitoring in ICUs. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(9):2671–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cotta MO, Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Myburgh J, Lipman J. Should β-lactam antibiotics be administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients? A survey of Australia and New Zealand intensive care unit doctors and pharmacists. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016;47(6):436–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wong G, Brinkman A, Benefield RJ, Carlier M, De Waele JJ, El Helali N, et al. An international, multicentre survey of beta-lactam antibiotic therapeutic drug monitoring practice in intensive care units. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(5):1416–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dulhunty JM, Webb SA, Paterson DL, Bellomo R, Myburgh J, Roberts JA, et al. A survey of antibiotic prescribing practices in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Crit Care Resusc J Australas Acad Crit Care Med. 2010;12(3):162–70.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dulhunty JM, Paterson D, Webb SAR, Lipman J. Antimicrobial utilisation in 37 Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39(2):231–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Charmillon A, Novy E, Agrinier N, Leone M, Kimmoun A, Levy B, et al. The ANTIBIOPERF study: a nationwide cross-sectional survey about practices for β-lactam administration and therapeutic drug monitoring among critically ill patients in France. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(7):625–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:1974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, Muscedere J, Sweeney DA, Palmer LB, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America and the American thoracic society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5):e61–111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdul-Aziz MH, Alffenaar J-WC, Bassetti M, Bracht H, Dimopoulos G, Marriott D, et al. Antimicrobial therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill adult patients: a position paper. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(6):1127–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams P, Beall G, Cotta MO, Roberts JA. Antimicrobial dosing in critical care: a pragmatic adult dosing nomogram. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(2): 105837.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. World Bank "World Bank Country and Lending Groups." [Internet]. World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group, 2022. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. 2022 [cited 13/04/2022].

  21. Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, Levine DP, Bradley JS, Liu C, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a revised consensus guideline and review by the American society of health-system pharmacists, the infectious diseases society of America, the pediatric infectious diseases society, and the Society of infectious diseases pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liebchen U, Paal M, Scharf C, Schroeder I, Grabein B, Zander J, et al. The ONTAI study—a survey on antimicrobial dosing and the practice of therapeutic drug monitoring in German intensive care units. J Crit Care. 2020;60:260–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lanckohr C, Boeing C, De Waele JJ, de Lange DW, Schouten J, Prins M, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship, therapeutic drug monitoring and infection management in the ICU: results from the international A- TEAMICU survey. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11(1):131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Barton GJ, Morecroft CW, Henney NC. A survey of antibiotic administration practices involving patients with sepsis in UK critical care units. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020;42(1):65–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fuentes YV, Blanco J, Díaz-Quijano DM, Lechtig-Wasserman S, Liebisch-Rey H, Díaz-Pinilla N, et al. Administration and therapeutic drug monitoring of β-lactams and vancomycin in critical care units in Colombia: the antibiocol study. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(10):1577.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Neely MN, Kato L, Youn G, Kraler L, Bayard D, van Guilder M, et al. Prospective trial on the use of trough concentration versus area under the curve to determine therapeutic vancomycin dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(2):e02042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, Moellering R Jr, 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 infectious diseases society of America, and the society of infectious diseases pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm AJHP Off J Am Soc Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66(1):82–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bland CM, Crosby CM, Orvin DL, Smith SE, Jones BM. Transitioning from guideline approval to practical implementation of AUC-based monitoring of vancomycin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2021;78(14):1270–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. De Waele JJ, Lipman J, Carlier M, Roberts JA. Subtleties in practical application of prolonged infusion of β-lactam antibiotics. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;45(5):461–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vardakas KZ, Voulgaris GL, Maliaros A, Samonis G, Falagas ME. Prolonged versus short-term intravenous infusion of antipseudomonal β-lactams for patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):108–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Davis JS, Dulhunty JM, Cotta MO, Myburgh J, et al. Continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in severe sepsis: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(6):681–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu J, Zhang S, Huang S, Chen Y, Zhang L, Du H, et al. Rationality of time-dependent antimicrobial use in intensive care units in China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8: 584813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tritscher P, Delannoy M, Agrinier N, Charmillon A, Degand N, Dellamonica J, et al. Assessment of current practice for β-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring in French ICUs in 2021: a nationwide cross-sectional survey. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022;77:2650.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mangalore RP, Ashok A, Lee SJ, Romero L, Peel TN, Udy AA, et al. Beta-lactam antibiotic therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis et al. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2022.

  35. Roger C, Louart B, Elotmani L, Barton G, Escobar L, Koulenti D, et al. An international survey on aminoglycoside practices in critically ill patients: the AMINO III study. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11(1):49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Touw DJ, Neef C, Thomson AH, Vinks AA. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring: a systematic review. Ther Drug Monit. 2005;27(1):10–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. De Winter S, Wauters J, Meersseman W, Verhaegen J, Van Wijngaerden E, Peetermans W, et al. Higher versus standard amikacin single dose in emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51(4):562–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gálvez R, Luengo C, Cornejo R, Kosche J, Romero C, Tobar E, et al. Higher than recommended amikacin loading doses achieve pharmacokinetic targets without associated toxicity. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;38(2):146–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Roger C, Nucci B, Louart B, Friggeri A, Knani H, Evrard A, et al. Impact of 30 mg/kg amikacin and 8 mg/kg gentamicin on serum concentrations in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;71(1):208–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Allou N, Bouteau A, Allyn J, Snauwaert A, Valance D, Jabot J, et al. Impact of a high loading dose of amikacin in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. van Lent-Evers NA, Mathot RA, Geus WP, van Hout BA, Vinks AA. Impact of goal-oriented and model-based clinical pharmacokinetic dosing of aminoglycosides on clinical outcome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ther Drug Monit. 1999;21(1):63–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moore RD, Lietman PS, Smith CR. Clinical response to aminoglycoside therapy: importance of the ratio of peak concentration to minimal inhibitory concentration. J Infect Dis. 1987;155(1):93–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Duszynska W, Taccone FS, Hurkacz M, Kowalska-Krochmal B, Wiela-Hojeńska A, Kübler A. Therapeutic drug monitoring of amikacin in septic patients. Crit Care. 2013;17(4):R165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Authorship committee would like to acknowledge the following professional societies for distributing the survey: ESICM, the Society of Hospital Pharmacist of Australia (SHPA), the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Study Group for Infections in Critically Ill Patients (ESGCIP), American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), Queensland Critical Care Research Network (QCCRN), Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists (CSHP), South African Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SASOCP), Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa (PSSA) and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) supported Intensive Care Research Coordinators Interest Group (IRCIG). Additionally, we like to recognize the contribution of the following National Coordinators as non-author contributors: Alexander Brinkmann, Mahesh Ramanan, Despoina Koulenti, Mohan Gurjar, Helmi Sulaiman, Gentle Shrestha, Andrea Cortegiani, Monica Crespo, Lowell Ling, Khalid Abidi, and Peter Schellongowski.

Funding

Paul Williams would like to recognize Clinician Researcher Fellowship funding from Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Study Education Research Trust Fund (SERTF) and Wishlist. Jason Roberts would like to acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for a Centre of Research Excellence (APP2007007) and an Investigator Grant (APP2009736) as well as an Advancing Queensland Clinical Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research (UQCCR), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia

    Paul G. Williams, Alexis Tabah, Menino Osbert Cotta & Jason A. Roberts

  2. Pharmacy Department, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, QLD, Australia

    Paul G. Williams

  3. Intensive Care Unit, Redcliffe Hospital, Redcliffe, QLD, Australia

    Alexis Tabah

  4. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Alexis Tabah

  5. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Indy Sandaradura

  6. Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Indy Sandaradura

  7. Institute for Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, New South Wales Health Pathology, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Indy Sandaradura

  8. The Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Salmaan Kanji

  9. Pharmacometric Center of Excellence, Departments of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, IL, USA

    Marc H. Scheetz

  10. Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Sahand Imani

  11. Faculty of Medicine, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya

    Muhammed Elhadi

  12. Pharmacy Department, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain

    Sònia Luque-Pardos

  13. Infectious Pathology and Antimicrobials Research Group (IPAR), Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain

    Sònia Luque-Pardos

  14. CIBER of Pharmacy, Saint Clare’s Infectious Diseases (CIBERINFEC CB21/13/0002) Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

    Sònia Luque-Pardos

  15. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Natalie Schellack

  16. Campus Centro Oeste Dona Lindu, Federal University of Sao João del Rei, Divinópolis, Minas Gerais, Brasil

    Cristina Sanches

  17. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris – Bichat hospital Medical and infectious diseases ICU (MI2), 75018, Paris, France

    Jean-Francois Timsit

  18. IAME U 1137 Université Paris-Cité Site Bichat, 75018, Paris, France

    Jean-Francois Timsit

  19. Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

    Jiao Xie

  20. Optimum Dosing Strategies, Bloomingdale, NJ, USA

    Andras Farkas

  21. Department of Pharmacy, Saint Clare’s Health, Denville, NJ, USA

    Andras Farkas

  22. Infectious Diseases Department, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, QLD, Australia

    Kathryn Wilks

  23. School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Kathryn Wilks

  24. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Jason A. Roberts

  25. Pharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Jason A. Roberts

  26. Division of Anaesthesiology Critical Care Emergency and Pain Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Nîmes, France

    Jason A. Roberts

Authors
  1. Paul G. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis Tabah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Menino Osbert Cotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Indy Sandaradura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Salmaan Kanji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marc H. Scheetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sahand Imani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Muhammed Elhadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sònia Luque-Pardos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Natalie Schellack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Cristina Sanches
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jean-Francois Timsit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jiao Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andras Farkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Kathryn Wilks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Jason A. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

National Coordinators on behalf of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Infections in Critically Ill Patients [ESGCIP]

  • Alexander Brinkmann
  • , Mahesh Ramanan
  • , Despoina Koulenti
  • , Mohan Gurjar
  • , Helmi Sulaiman
  • , Gentle Shrestha
  • , Andrea Cortegiani
  • , Monica Crespo
  • ,  Lowell Ling
  • , Khalid Abidi
  •  & Peter Schellongowski

Contributions

PW designed the survey, sought societal endorsement, led and coordinated distribution of the survey, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. AT, MC, and JAR contributed to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the manuscript. All other authors contributed to the design of survey, distributed the survey via their national networks, and provided manuscript feedback. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul G. Williams.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of Queensland, Human Research Ethics Committee, granted ethics approval and a waiver of consent for the study titled ‘International Survey on Antibiotic Dosing and Monitoring in Adult ICUs’ on 2nd March 2021 (2020/HE002747).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary Material, Description of data: Table S1. Definition of infusion types and duration; Table S2. Online survey questions; Table S3. Exclusions; Table S4. Respondents as per Region and Economy; Table S5. Results according to Region and Economy; Table S6. TDM utilization and beta-lactam prolonged infusion administration according to hospital type.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williams, P.G., Tabah, A., Cotta, M.O. et al. International survey of antibiotic dosing and monitoring in adult intensive care units. Crit Care 27, 241 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04527-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04527-1

Keywords

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535