Patient characteristics
According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 51 newborns were enrolled in our study. The median GA was 38.3 weeks (range: 31.4–41.6 weeks). The median PNA was 1.0 day (range: 1.0–5.0 days). Additionally, the median WT was 3100.0 grams (range: 1140–4460 grams). Detailed baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Newborn’s characteristics
|
Number
|
Median
|
Range
|
Patients
|
51
|
|
|
Gender (Female/Male)
|
31/20
|
|
|
Cefotaxime samples
|
94
|
|
|
Gestational age(weeks)
|
|
38.3
|
31.4-41.6
|
Postnatal age(days)
|
|
1.0
|
1.0-5.0
|
Postmenstrual age(weeks)
|
|
38.4
|
31.7-41.9
|
Current weight(grams)
|
|
3100.0
|
1140.0-4460.0
|
Albumin(g/L)
|
|
33.8
|
27.7-38.8
|
Alanine amino transferase(U/L)
|
|
11.7
|
5.8-41.7
|
Aspartate amino transferase(U/L)
|
|
63.3
|
23.1-207.3
|
Total bilirubin(μmol/L)
|
|
85.8
|
27.9-290.1
|
Urea nitrogen(mmol/L)
|
|
4.2
|
1.9-7.6
|
Serum creatinine(μmol/L)
|
|
59.2
|
26.7-84.1
|
Cefotaxime dose(mg)
|
|
150.0
|
50.0-220.0
|
Concentrations(μg/mL)
|
|
107.1
|
6.9-383.2
|
Population pharmacokinetic modeling
We analyzed 94 cefotaxime concentrations from the 51 newborns. Concentrations ranged from 6.9 to 383.2 μg/ml, with the concentration-time profile illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Cefotaxime concentrations versus time courses.
A two-compartment model, characterized by lower objective function value (OFV) and residual variability compared to the one-compartment model, best described the data. The model included parameters for clearance (CL), central volume of distribution (V1), inter-compartmental clearance (Q), and peripheral volume of distribution (V2). Inter-individual variability was modeled exponentially, and residual variability was modeled proportionally.
Incorporating WT into the basic model significantly reduced the OFV by 91.307 points. During the forward inclusion process, four covariates significantly influenced CL: GA with △OFV of 4.184, PMA with △OFV of 4.979, PNA with △OFV of 10.689, and TBIL with △OFV of 4.513. However, except for PNA, these covariates did not satisfy the criteria for backward elimination. Ultimately, WT and PNA emerged as the most significant covariates. The final model estimated the weight-normalized CL of cefotaxime to be 0.08 L/h/kg, ranging from 0.04 to 0.15. The V1 and V2 were determined to be 0.13 L/kg (range 0.10-0.16) and 0.19 L/kg (range 0.16-0.24), respectively. The model indicated that cefotaxime CL increases with WT and PNA. Parameter estimates from the final model are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Model parameters and estimates
Parameter
|
Final model
|
Bootstrap (n=100)
|
Mean estimate
|
RSE (%)
|
Median
|
5th-95th
|
CL=θ1×(WT/3.10) θ2 ×(PNA/1) θ3
|
θ1
|
0.20
|
5.7
|
0.20
|
0.18-0.21
|
θ2
|
1.14
|
12.9
|
1.15
|
0.88-1.38
|
θ3
|
0.34
|
26.0
|
0.34
|
0.17-0.48
|
V1=θ4×(WT/3.10) θ5
|
θ4
|
0.37
|
12.5
|
0.37
|
0.27-0.47
|
θ5
|
0.72
|
33.4
|
0.82
|
0.22-1.60
|
Q=θ6×(WT/3.10) θ7
|
θ6
|
2.91
|
11.6
|
2.79
|
2.05-3.48
|
θ7
|
1.26
|
27.8
|
1.27
|
0.18-2.50
|
V2=θ8×(WT/3.10) θ9
|
θ8
|
0.54
|
8.5
|
0.54
|
0.45-0.62
|
θ9
|
0.88
|
20.5
|
0.78
|
0.29-1.15
|
Inter-individual variability(%)
|
CL
|
28.3
|
17.3
|
25.7
|
17.5-32.8
|
V1
|
13.1
|
62.1
|
13.4
|
4.4-31.7
|
Residual variability(%)
|
12.9
|
18.6
|
11.4
|
5.0-14.6
|
CL, clearance; V1, central volume of distribution; Q, inter-compartmental clearance; V2, peripheral volume of distribution; WT, current weight in grams; PNA, postnatal age in days.
The goodness-of-fit results for final pharmacokinetic model of cefotaxime are displayed in Figure 2. The model demonstrated a good fit, as evidenced by the close alignment of individual and population predictions with observed concentrations (Figure 2 A and B). The conditionally weighted residuals were uniformly distributed across all concentrations and time points (Figure 2 C and D). Bootstrap analysis confirmed the model’s reliability and stability, with 963 out of 1000 simulations being successful. The VPC results, shown in Figure 3, indicated that most observed data fell within the 95% confidence interval, affirming the model's predictive accuracy. Additionally, the NPDE results (Figure 4) closely followed a standard normal distribution, with a mean of 0.0347 and a variance of 0.981, further validating the model’s robustness.
Figure 2 Goodness-of-fit plots of cefotaxime final model. (A) Population predicted concentrations (PRED) versus observed concentrations (DV). (B) Individual predicted concentrations (IPRED) versus DV. (C) Conditional weighted residuals (CWRES) versus PRED. (D) CWRES versus time.
Figure 3 Visual predictive check of cefotaxime final model. The dots are observed concentration values, and the solid and dotted lines are the middle values and 5% and 95% quantiles of observed concentration values, respectively. The red shaded area is the 95% confidence interval of the median of the model prediction, and the blue shaded area is the 95% confidence interval of the 5th and 95th percentiles of the model prediction.
Figure 4 Normalized prediction distribution errors of cefotaxime final model. (A) Normalized prediction Distribution error (NPDE) histogram. (B) Quantile-quantile plot. (C) NPDE versus time. (D) NPED versus population predicted concentrations.
PTA
Tables 3 and 4 display the outcomes of Monte Carlo simulations (n=1000) that utilized a spectrum of body weights (1.8, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0 kg) and dosing regimens (50.0 mg/kg, 37.5 mg/kg, 25.0 mg/kg q12h) for cefotaxime. We adopted the same therapeutic target of 100% fT>MIC for cefotaxime as established by Béranger et al. [15]. The simulations revealed that with an MIC of 2 μg/mL, the standard dosing regimen (50.0 mg/kg q12h) enabled over 90% of newborns to achieve 100% fT>MIC. Notably, for newborns weighing ≤ 2.5 kg, a reduced dose of 25.0 mg/kg still met the predefined PK/PD target. Specifically, at a body weight of 2.5 kg, a dosing regimen of 25.0 mg/kg q12h achieved a target attainment of 90.8%, as illustrated in Figure 5.
Table 3 Cefotaxime dose simulation results (MIC= 0.5 μg /mL).
Dosing regimen
|
%fT>MIC
|
WT
|
1800 g
|
2500 g
|
3000 g
|
4000 g
|
25.0 mg/kg,q12h
|
|
75%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
99.7
|
|
90%
|
100.0
|
99.8
|
99.8
|
98.4
|
|
100%
|
99.9
|
99.5
|
99.2
|
95.7
|
37.5 mg/kg,q12h
|
|
75%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
90%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
99.8
|
99.5
|
|
100%
|
100.0
|
99.9
|
99.2
|
99.2
|
50.0 mg/kg,q12h
|
|
75%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
90%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
99.8
|
|
100%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
99.9
|
99.4
|
fT>MIC, fraction of time (fT) where the drug exceeds the MIC; WT, current weight (kg); q12h, dosed every 12 h.
PK/PD targets ≥90%fT>MIC have been highlighted in bold.
Table 4 Cefotaxime dose simulation results (MIC= 2 μg /mL).
Dosing regimen
|
%fT>MIC
|
WT
|
1800 g
|
2500 g
|
3000 g
|
4000 g
|
25.0 mg/kg,q12h
|
|
75%
|
99.7
|
99.0
|
98.8
|
89.3
|
|
90%
|
97.5
|
95.4
|
93.6
|
70.3
|
|
100%
|
95.2
|
90.8
|
87.3
|
56.2
|
37.5 mg/kg,q12h
|
|
75%
|
100.0
|
99.9
|
98.9
|
98.9
|
|
90%
|
99.7
|
99.2
|
94.4
|
92.5
|
|
100%
|
98.8
|
97.4
|
89.0
|
82.9
|
50.0 mg/kg,q12h
|
|
75%
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
99.9
|
99.0
|
|
90%
|
99.8
|
99.6
|
99.0
|
94.8
|
|
100%
|
99.6
|
98.7
|
97.3
|
91.0
|
fT>MIC, fraction of time (fT) where the drug exceeds the MIC; WT, current weight (kg); q12h, dosed every 12 h.
PK/PD targets ≥90%fT>MIC have been highlighted in bold.
Figure 5 Cefotaxime dose simulation diagram (MIC= 2 μg /mL).