Step-by-Step Management of Parkinson's Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder, affecting over 10 million individuals worldwide. Optimal management requires a systematic, multidisciplinary approach that evolves with disease progression.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the step-by-step management of Parkinson's disease from diagnosis through advanced stages.

Methods: This review synthesizes current evidence from major clinical trials, international guidelines, and recent meta-analyses to present a structured approach to PD management.

Results: We present a systematic management framework encompassing: (1) accurate diagnosis and differential diagnosis, (2) initial therapeutic decisions, (3) optimization of dopaminergic therapy, (4) management of motor complications, (5) non-motor symptom recognition and treatment, (6) advanced therapies, and (7) palliative and end-of-life care considerations.

Conclusions: Effective PD management requires individualized, stepwise therapeutic escalation combined with comprehensive non-motor symptom management and timely consideration of advanced therapies to optimize quality of life throughout the disease course.

Keywords: Parkinson's disease, movement disorders, dopamine, levodopa, deep brain stimulation, motor complications

---

Introduction

Parkinson's disease represents a complex neurodegenerative condition characterized by progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra, resulting in the cardinal motor features of bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability¹. Beyond motor manifestations, PD encompasses a broad spectrum of non-motor symptoms that significantly impact quality of life and often precede motor symptoms by years².

The management of PD has evolved considerably with advances in understanding disease pathophysiology, expanded therapeutic options, and recognition of the importance of individualized care. This review provides a systematic, step-by-step approach to PD management based on current evidence and international consensus guidelines³⁻⁵.

---

Step 1: Accurate Diagnosis and Assessment

Clinical Diagnosis

The diagnosis of PD remains clinical, based on the presence of bradykinesia plus at least one of: muscular rigidity, rest tremor (4-6 Hz), or postural instability not caused by primary visual, vestibular, cerebellar, or proprioceptive dysfunction⁶.

Essential Diagnostic Criteria:

• Bradykinesia (slowness of movement with progressive reduction in amplitude/speed)
• Plus one of: muscular rigidity, rest tremor, postural instability

Supportive Criteria:

• Unilateral onset with persistent asymmetry
• Excellent response to levodopa (>70% improvement)
• Severe levodopa-induced dyskinesia
• Levodopa response ≥5 years
• Clinical course ≥10 years

Differential Diagnosis

Careful exclusion of alternative diagnoses is crucial, particularly atypical parkinsonism:

Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP):

• Early falls, supranuclear gaze palsy, axial rigidity
• Poor levodopa response

Multiple System Atrophy (MSA):

• Autonomic failure, cerebellar signs, pyramidal signs
• Stridor, poor levodopa response

Corticobasal Degeneration (CBD):

• Asymmetric rigidity, apraxia, alien limb phenomenon
• Cortical sensory loss

Lewy Body Dementia:

• Early cognitive impairment, visual hallucinations
• Fluctuating cognition, REM sleep behavior disorder

Baseline Assessment

Motor Assessment:

• Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Parts I-IV⁷
• Hoehn and Yahr staging
• Timed motor tasks (finger tapping, rapid alternating movements)

Non-Motor Assessment:

• Cognitive screening (Montreal Cognitive Assessment)
• Mood assessment (Beck Depression Inventory)
• Sleep evaluation (Epworth Sleepiness Scale)
• Autonomic function assessment
• Quality of life measures (PDQ-39)

Diagnostic Imaging:

• DaTscan (dopamine transporter SPECT) when diagnosis uncertain⁸
• MRI to exclude structural lesions
• Consider cardiac MIBG scintigraphy for differential diagnosis

---

Step 2: Initial Therapeutic Decisions

Treatment Initiation Timing

Treatment initiation should be individualized based on:

• Functional impairment and quality of life impact
• Occupational requirements
• Patient age and comorbidities
• Patient preferences regarding potential side effects

Key Principle: Treatment should begin when symptoms interfere with daily activities or quality of life, not merely upon diagnosis⁹.

First-Line Therapeutic Options

For Patients <65 Years

Preferred Initial Therapies:

1. Dopamine Agonists (ropinirole, pramipexole, rotigotine)

   • Lower risk of motor complications
   • Gradual titration required
   • Monitor for impulse control disorders

2. MAO-B Inhibitors (rasagiline, selegiline, safinamide)

   • Mild symptomatic benefit
   • Potential neuroprotective effects
   • Good tolerability profile

For Patients ≥65 Years

Preferred Initial Therapy:

1. Levodopa/Carbidopa
   • Most effective symptomatic therapy
   • Better tolerability in elderly
   • Lower risk of psychiatric side effects

Monotherapy vs. Combination Therapy

Initial Monotherapy Preferred:

• Allows assessment of individual drug response
• Simplifies side effect attribution
• Facilitates dose optimization

Early Combination Considerations:

• Inadequate monotherapy response
• Tremor-predominant disease (consider anticholinergics in young patients)
• Specific symptom targeting

---

Step 3: Optimization of Dopaminergic Therapy

Levodopa Optimization

Starting Doses:

• Immediate-release levodopa/carbidopa: 25/100 mg TID
• Titrate by 25/100 mg every 3-7 days
• Target: minimum effective dose for symptom control

Extended-Release Formulations:

• Consider for patients with wearing-off
• Rytary (extended-release carbidopa/levodopa)
• Requires dose conversion and timing adjustments

Dopamine Agonist Optimization

Ropinirole Titration:

• Week 1: 0.25 mg TID
• Increase by 0.25 mg TID weekly
• Maximum: 8 mg TID

Pramipexole Titration:

• Week 1: 0.125 mg TID
• Increase by 0.125 mg TID weekly
• Maximum: 1.5 mg TID

Rotigotine Patch:

• Starting dose: 2 mg/24 hours
• Increase by 2 mg weekly
• Maximum: 8 mg/24 hours

Monitoring and Adjustment

Regular Assessment (Every 3-6 months):

• Motor symptom control
• Activities of daily living
• Side effect monitoring
• Quality of life measures

Dose Adjustment Principles:

• Optimize before adding additional medications
• Consider timing of doses relative to meals
• Address individual symptom variability

---

Step 4: Management of Motor Complications

Wearing-Off Phenomenon

Recognition:

• Return of parkinsonian symptoms before next dose
• Predictable symptom fluctuations
• Shortened duration of benefit

Management Strategies:

1. Increase Dosing Frequency

   • Reduce dosing intervals
   • Maintain total daily dose initially

2. Add COMT Inhibitors

   • Entacapone 200 mg with each levodopa dose
   • Prolongs levodopa half-life
   • Stalevo (carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone combination)

3. Extended-Release Formulations

   • Rytary for smoother plasma levels
   • Inbrija (inhaled levodopa) for off episodes

4. Adjunctive Therapies

   • MAO-B inhibitors (rasagiline, safinamide)
   • Dopamine agonists if not already prescribed

Dyskinesia Management

Peak-Dose Dyskinesia:

• Reduce individual levodopa doses
• Increase dosing frequency
• Add amantadine 100-300 mg daily¹⁰

Diphasic Dyskinesia:

• More complex pattern
• May require continuous dopaminergic stimulation
• Consider advanced therapies earlier

Off-Period Dystonia:

• Often affects feet/toes in early morning
• Extend overnight dopaminergic coverage
• Consider controlled-release preparations

Advanced Motor Complications

Complex Fluctuations:

• Unpredictable on-off phenomena
• Delayed-on, no-on responses
• Freezing episodes

Management Approach:

• Optimize oral medications first
• Consider advanced therapies (DBS, pump therapies)
• Multidisciplinary team involvement

---

Step 5: Non-Motor Symptom Management

Cognitive Symptoms

Mild Cognitive Impairment:

• Cognitive rehabilitation
• Optimize dopaminergic medications
• Address contributing factors (depression, sleep disorders)

Parkinson's Disease Dementia:

• Rivastigmine 3-12 mg daily¹¹
• Reduce anticholinergic burden
• Behavioral interventions

Psychiatric Symptoms

Depression:

• SSRIs (sertraline, citalopram) first-line
• Consider tricyclic antidepressants
• Pramipexole may have antidepressant effects

Anxiety:

• Often responds to dopaminergic optimization
• SSRIs for persistent anxiety
• Cognitive-behavioral therapy

Psychosis:

• Reduce dopaminergic medications if possible
• Quetiapine 12.5-50 mg daily
• Pimavanserin 34 mg daily (FDA-approved for PD psychosis)¹²

Sleep Disorders

REM Sleep Behavior Disorder:

• Melatonin 3-12 mg at bedtime
• Clonazepam 0.5-2 mg at bedtime
• Bedroom safety measures

Excessive Daytime Sleepiness:

• Modafinil 100-400 mg daily
• Address sleep hygiene
• Evaluate for sleep apnea

Restless Legs Syndrome:

• Often responds to dopamine agonists
• Iron supplementation if deficient
• Gabapentin for refractory cases

Autonomic Symptoms

Orthostatic Hypotension:

• Non-pharmacologic measures (hydration, compression stockings)
• Fludrocortisone 0.1-0.3 mg daily
• Midodrine 2.5-10 mg TID
• Droxidopa 100-600 mg TID¹³

Constipation:

• Increased fiber and fluid intake
• Polyethylene glycol
• Lubiprostone for refractory cases

Urinary Dysfunction:

• Evaluate for retention vs. overactivity
• Anticholinergics for overactive bladder
• Alpha-blockers for retention

Speech and Swallowing

Hypophonia:

• Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD)
• Speech therapy referral
• Consider voice amplification devices

Dysphagia:

• Speech-language pathology evaluation
• Modified barium swallow study
• Dietary modifications
• Consider PEG tube for severe cases

---

Step 6: Advanced Therapies

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)

Candidacy Criteria:

• Good levodopa response (>30% improvement in UPDRS-III)
• Motor complications despite optimal medical therapy
• Age typically <70-75 years
• Absence of significant cognitive impairment
• Realistic expectations

Target Selection:

• Subthalamic Nucleus (STN): Best for tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia
• Globus Pallidus Internus (GPi): Preferred for dyskinesia-predominant patients

Expected Outcomes:

• 30-60% improvement in motor symptoms
• Significant reduction in motor complications
• Medication reduction possible

Continuous Therapies

Duopa (Carbidopa/Levodopa Enteral Suspension):

• Percutaneous gastrostomy administration
• Continuous dopaminergic stimulation
• Reduces motor fluctuations significantly¹⁴

Apomorphine Pump:

• Continuous subcutaneous infusion
• Rapid onset of action
• Requires antiemetic pretreatment

Patient Selection for Advanced Therapies

Ideal Candidates:

• Significant motor complications
• Good cognitive function
• Realistic expectations
• Adequate social support
• Failed optimal medical management

Relative Contraindications:

• Significant cognitive impairment
• Active psychiatric disease
• Poor surgical candidate
• Unrealistic expectations

---

Step 7: Multidisciplinary Care and Supportive Therapies

Physical Therapy

Goals:

• Maintain mobility and flexibility
• Improve balance and reduce falls
• Address freezing episodes
• Gait training

Specific Interventions:

• Large amplitude movements (LSVT BIG)
• Cueing strategies for freezing
• Balance training programs
• Strength and endurance exercises

Occupational Therapy

Focus Areas:

• Activities of daily living
• Home safety assessment
• Adaptive equipment
• Energy conservation techniques

Exercise Programs

Evidence-Based Benefits:

• Forced exercise (high-intensity cycling)
• Tango dancing
• Tai Chi for balance
• Boxing programs (Rock Steady Boxing)

General Recommendations:

• 150 minutes moderate exercise weekly
• Include aerobic, strength, and flexibility components
• Balance training 2-3 times weekly

Nutritional Considerations

Protein Timing:

• Separate protein intake from levodopa doses
• Consider low-protein breakfast and lunch
• Concentrate protein at dinner

Specific Nutrients:

• Adequate calcium and vitamin D
• B-vitamin supplementation if deficient
• Maintain adequate fiber intake

---

Step 8: Monitoring and Long-Term Management

Regular Assessment Schedule

Every 3-6 Months:

• Motor symptom evaluation (MDS-UPDRS)
• Non-motor symptom screening
• Medication review and optimization
• Functional status assessment

Annual Assessments:

• Comprehensive cognitive evaluation
• Bone density screening
• Cardiovascular risk assessment
• Advanced therapy candidacy review

Disease Progression Monitoring

Early Disease (Hoehn & Yahr 1-2):

• Focus on symptom control
• Lifestyle modifications
• Exercise programs
• Education and support

Moderate Disease (Hoehn & Yahr 2.5-3):

• Motor complication management
• Non-motor symptom treatment
• Advanced therapy consideration
• Safety assessments

Advanced Disease (Hoehn & Yahr 4-5):

• Palliative care consultation
• Caregiver support
• End-of-life planning
• Comfort-focused care

Quality Indicators

Treatment Goals:

• Optimize functional independence
• Minimize motor complications
• Address non-motor symptoms
• Maintain quality of life
• Prevent complications

Red Flags Requiring Urgent Review:

• Sudden worsening of symptoms
• New psychiatric symptoms
• Falling episodes
• Swallowing difficulties
• Medication non-adherence

---

Special Populations and Considerations

Young-Onset Parkinson's Disease

Unique Considerations:

• Higher risk of motor complications
• Different psychological impact
• Family planning considerations
• Career implications

Management Modifications:

• Delayed levodopa initiation when possible
• Dopamine agonist preference
• Early DBS consideration
• Genetic counseling

Elderly Patients

Special Considerations:

• Increased risk of psychiatric side effects
• Polypharmacy interactions
• Falls risk
• Cognitive vulnerability

Management Approach:

• Start low, go slow
• Prefer levodopa over dopamine agonists
• Careful monitoring for confusion
• Fall prevention strategies

Comorbid Conditions

Cardiovascular Disease:

• Monitor for orthostatic hypotension
• Drug interaction awareness
• Exercise program modifications

Diabetes:

• Glucose control optimization
• Neuropathy vs. PD symptom differentiation
• Medication timing considerations

---

Emerging Therapies and Future Directions

Novel Therapeutic Targets

Alpha-Synuclein Targeting:

• Immunotherapy approaches
• Small molecule inhibitors
• Gene therapy strategies

Neuroprotection:

• GLP-1 receptor agonists
• Antioxidant strategies
• Mitochondrial therapies

Precision Medicine:

• Genetic subtyping
• Biomarker-guided therapy
• Personalized treatment algorithms

Technology Integration

Digital Health Tools:

• Smartphone-based symptom monitoring
• Wearable device integration
• Telemedicine platforms
• AI-assisted clinical decision support

---

Palliative and End-of-Life Care

Advanced Disease Management

Symptom Management:

• Pain control strategies
• Respiratory comfort measures
• Nutritional support decisions
• Mobility preservation

Psychosocial Support:

• Patient and family counseling
• Advance directive completion
• Spiritual care referrals
• Bereavement support

Ethical Considerations

Decision-Making Capacity:

• Cognitive assessment
• Surrogate decision-maker identification
• Values clarification

Quality vs. Quantity of Life:

• Treatment goal discussions
• Comfort-focused care transitions
• Hospice care referrals

---

Conclusions

The management of Parkinson's disease requires a systematic, individualized approach that evolves throughout the disease course. Key principles include accurate diagnosis, appropriate treatment initiation, systematic optimization of dopaminergic therapy, comprehensive non-motor symptom management, and timely consideration of advanced therapies.

Success depends on multidisciplinary collaboration, regular monitoring, patient education, and adaptation of treatment strategies as the disease progresses. Future advances in precision medicine, neuroprotective strategies, and technology integration promise to further improve outcomes for patients with Parkinson's disease.

The step-by-step approach outlined in this review provides a framework for optimal PD management while emphasizing the need for individualization based on patient-specific factors, preferences, and goals of care.

---

References

1. Postuma RB, Berg D, Stern M, et al. MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2015;30(12):1591-1601.

2. Schapira AHV, Chaudhuri KR, Jenner P. Non-motor features of Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18(7):435-450.

3. Fox SH, Katzenschlager R, Lim SY, et al. International Parkinson and movement disorder society evidence-based medicine review: Update on treatments for the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2018;33(8):1248-1266.

4. Seppi K, Ray Chaudhuri K, Coelho M, et al. Update on treatments for nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson's disease-an evidence-based medicine review. Mov Disord. 2019;34(2):180-198.

5. Armstrong MJ, Okun MS. Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: A review. JAMA. 2020;323(6):548-560.

6. Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992;55(3):181-184.

7. Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord. 2008;23(15):2129-2170.

8. Marek K, Jennings D, Lasch S, et al. The parkinson progression marker initiative (PPMI). Prog Neurobiol. 2011;95(4):629-635.

9. Olanow CW, Rascol O, Hauser R, et al. A double-blind, delayed-start trial of rasagiline in Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):1268-1278.

10. Elahi B, Elahi B, Chen R. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on Parkinson motor function--systematic review of controlled trials. Mov Disord. 2009;24(3):357-363.

11. Emre M, Aarsland D, Albanese A, et al. Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(24):2509-2518.

12. Cummings J, Isaacson S, Mills R, et al. Pimavanserin for patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9916):533-540.

13. Hauser RA, Isaacson S, Lisk JP, et al. Droxidopa for treatment of symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Mov Disord. 2015;30(5):646-654.

14. Olanow CW, Kieburtz K, Odin P, et al. Continuous intrajejunal infusion of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(2):141-149.

---

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: No specific funding was received for this review.

Scoring systems in sepsis

 

Step-by-Step Utilization and Pitfalls of Clinical Scoring Systems in Sepsis: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Clinical scoring systems are fundamental tools in sepsis management, providing standardized approaches for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment guidance. However, their optimal utilization requires understanding of proper application techniques and awareness of inherent limitations.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of major clinical scoring systems used in sepsis, detailing step-by-step implementation protocols and identifying common pitfalls that may compromise clinical decision-making.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of literature published between 2010-2024, focusing on SIRS criteria, qSOFA, SOFA score, APACHE II/IV, and SAPS II/III scoring systems in sepsis management.

Results: Each scoring system demonstrates specific strengths and limitations. qSOFA shows superior bedside applicability but limited sensitivity in early sepsis detection. SOFA score provides comprehensive organ dysfunction assessment but requires frequent laboratory monitoring. APACHE and SAPS scores offer robust mortality prediction but are complex and time-consuming.

Conclusions: Effective utilization of sepsis scoring systems requires systematic implementation, awareness of contextual limitations, and integration with clinical judgment. Understanding common pitfalls can significantly improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes.

Keywords: Sepsis, clinical scores, qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE, SAPS, critical care

---

Introduction

Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units worldwide, with incidence rates continuing to rise despite advances in critical care medicine.¹ The heterogeneous nature of sepsis presentation and progression necessitates standardized assessment tools to guide clinical decision-making, resource allocation, and prognostic evaluation.²

Clinical scoring systems in sepsis serve multiple purposes: early recognition and diagnosis, severity stratification, prognostic assessment, and treatment response monitoring.³ However, the proliferation of different scoring systems has created confusion regarding optimal selection and implementation in various clinical contexts.

The evolution from Sepsis-1 to Sepsis-3 definitions has fundamentally altered our approach to sepsis recognition, with the introduction of qSOFA (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and emphasis on organ dysfunction rather than inflammatory response.⁴ This paradigm shift necessitates a comprehensive understanding of how to properly implement these tools while avoiding common interpretive errors.

This review aims to provide clinicians with practical, step-by-step guidance for implementing major sepsis scoring systems while highlighting critical pitfalls that may compromise clinical effectiveness.

---

Methodology

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 2010 to December 2024. Search terms included: "sepsis scoring systems," "qSOFA," "SOFA score," "APACHE," "SAPS," "clinical prediction rules," and "sepsis diagnosis." Studies were included if they evaluated the performance, implementation, or limitations of major sepsis scoring systems in adult populations.

---

Major Clinical Scoring Systems in Sepsis

1. Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA)

Step-by-Step Implementation

Components and Scoring:

• Respiratory rate ≥22/min (1 point)
• Altered mentation (GCS <15) (1 point)
• Systolic blood pressure ≤100 mmHg (1 point)
• Total possible score: 0-3 points

Implementation Protocol:

1. Initial Assessment: Evaluate all three parameters simultaneously at patient presentation
2. Threshold Application: qSOFA ≥2 suggests high risk for poor outcomes
3. Documentation: Record specific values, not just positive/negative findings
4. Reassessment: Re-evaluate every 4-6 hours or with clinical change
5. Integration: Use as screening tool, not diagnostic criterion

Clinical Pitfalls and Limitations

Major Pitfalls:

• Over-reliance for diagnosis: qSOFA is a screening tool, not a diagnostic criterion for sepsis⁵
• Insensitivity in early sepsis: May miss patients with significant infection but preserved physiology⁶
• Age-related bias: Less sensitive in elderly patients with baseline altered mental status
• Medication interference: Antihypertensive medications may mask hypotension component

Contextual Limitations:

• Emergency department validation is stronger than ICU application⁷
• Performance varies significantly across different patient populations
• Limited utility in immunocompromised patients
• May delay appropriate antibiotic therapy if used as sole screening tool

2. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)

Step-by-Step Implementation

Component Systems and Scoring:

Respiratory System (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio):

• 400: 0 points

• 300-399: 1 point
• 200-299: 2 points
• 100-199: 3 points
• <100: 4 points

Cardiovascular System (Hypotension/Vasopressors):

• No hypotension: 0 points
• MAP <70 mmHg: 1 point
• Dopamine ≤5 or dobutamine (any): 2 points
• Dopamine >5, epinephrine ≤0.1, or norepinephrine ≤0.1: 3 points
• Dopamine >15, epinephrine >0.1, or norepinephrine >0.1: 4 points

Hepatic System (Bilirubin mg/dL):

• <1.2: 0 points
• 1.2-1.9: 1 point
• 2.0-5.9: 2 points
• 6.0-11.9: 3 points

• 12.0: 4 points

Coagulation System (Platelets ×10³/μL):

• 150: 0 points

• 100-149: 1 point
• 50-99: 2 points
• 20-49: 3 points
• <20: 4 points

Renal System (Creatinine mg/dL or Urine Output):

• <1.2: 0 points
• 1.2-1.9: 1 point
• 2.0-3.4: 2 points
• 3.5-4.9 or <500 mL/day: 3 points

• 5.0 or <200 mL/day: 4 points

Neurological System (Glasgow Coma Scale):

• 15: 0 points
• 13-14: 1 point
• 10-12: 2 points
• 6-9: 3 points
• <6: 4 points

Implementation Protocol:

1. Baseline Calculation: Establish admission SOFA score within 24 hours
2. Daily Assessment: Calculate daily SOFA scores throughout ICU stay
3. Delta SOFA: Monitor changes from baseline (increase ≥2 points suggests sepsis)
4. Missing Data Management: Use available parameters; do not estimate missing values
5. Trending Analysis: Focus on trajectory rather than isolated values

Clinical Pitfalls and Limitations

Major Pitfalls:

• Incomplete data collection: Tendency to estimate rather than obtain actual laboratory values⁸
• Timing errors: Using single time-point rather than worst values within 24-hour period
• Baseline assumption errors: Assuming normal baseline in patients with chronic organ dysfunction
• Vasopressor calculation errors: Incorrect conversion between different vasopressor agents

Contextual Limitations:

• Requires complete laboratory data set
• Less applicable in resource-limited settings
• May not reflect rapid clinical changes
• Influenced by treatment decisions (e.g., early intubation may artificially increase respiratory score)

3. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II/IV)

Step-by-Step Implementation

APACHE II Components:

• Acute Physiology Score (0-60 points)
• Age points (0-6 points)
• Chronic Health Points (0-5 points)

Implementation Protocol:

1. Data Collection Window: Use worst values from first 24 hours of ICU admission
2. Physiologic Variables: Temperature, MAP, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygenation, arterial pH, serum sodium, serum potassium, serum creatinine, hematocrit, white blood cell count, Glasgow Coma Scale
3. Age Stratification: Apply age-based points according to standardized criteria
4. Chronic Health Assessment: Evaluate for severe organ system insufficiency or immunocompromised state
5. Mortality Prediction: Use validated equations for risk stratification

Clinical Pitfalls and Limitations

Major Pitfalls:

• Data collection timing errors: Using values outside the specified 24-hour window⁹
• Chronic health misclassification: Failure to properly identify qualifying chronic conditions
• Oxygenation calculation errors: Incorrect use of A-a gradient vs. PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio
• Missing data management: Improper handling of unavailable laboratory values

Contextual Limitations:

• Complex calculation requirements
• Limited applicability to specific patient populations
• May overestimate mortality in some contemporary cohorts
• Requires significant data collection resources

4. Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II/III)

Step-by-Step Implementation

SAPS II Components:

• 12 physiological variables
• Age
• Type of admission
• 3 underlying disease variables

Implementation Protocol:

1. Variable Collection: Gather worst values within first 24 hours
2. Admission Type Classification: Properly categorize as scheduled surgical, unscheduled surgical, or medical
3. Comorbidity Assessment: Evaluate for AIDS, metastatic cancer, and hematologic malignancy
4. Score Calculation: Apply standardized point assignments
5. Risk Estimation: Convert to predicted mortality using logistic regression equation

Clinical Pitfalls and Limitations

Major Pitfalls:

• Admission type misclassification: Incorrect categorization affects score accuracy¹⁰
• Comorbidity oversight: Missing relevant chronic health conditions
• Regional validation issues: Direct application without local calibration
• Timing inconsistencies: Mixing values from different time periods

---

Comparative Analysis and Selection Guidelines

Performance Characteristics

Sensitivity and Specificity:

• qSOFA: High specificity (85-90%), moderate sensitivity (60-70%) for mortality prediction⁶
• SOFA: Excellent discrimination for organ dysfunction (AUROC 0.80-0.85)¹¹
• APACHE II: Strong mortality prediction (AUROC 0.85-0.90) in mixed ICU populations⁹
• SAPS II: Comparable performance to APACHE II with simpler calculation¹⁰

Clinical Context Optimization:

• Emergency Department: qSOFA for initial screening
• ICU Admission: SOFA for comprehensive assessment
• Mortality Prediction: APACHE II/IV or SAPS II/III
• Research Applications: SOFA for standardized organ dysfunction measurement

Integration Strategies

Multi-Score Approach:

1. Screening Phase: qSOFA for initial risk stratification
2. Diagnostic Phase: SOFA score for organ dysfunction quantification
3. Prognostic Phase: APACHE or SAPS for mortality prediction
4. Monitoring Phase: Serial SOFA scores for treatment response

---

Common Implementation Errors

Systematic Pitfalls

Data Quality Issues:

• Incomplete laboratory data collection
• Timing errors in value selection
• Failure to account for treatment effects
• Inappropriate baseline assumptions

Interpretive Errors:

• Over-reliance on single scores
• Ignoring confidence intervals
• Misunderstanding population-specific performance
• Failure to integrate clinical context

Operational Challenges:

• Inadequate staff training
• Inconsistent application protocols
• Poor documentation practices
• Technology integration failures

Quality Improvement Strategies

Standardization Protocols:

1. Clear Documentation Standards: Specify timing, data sources, and calculation methods
2. Staff Education Programs: Regular training on proper implementation
3. Technology Integration: Automated calculation with manual oversight
4. Regular Auditing: Periodic review of scoring accuracy and consistency

---

Recommendations for Clinical Practice

Implementation Best Practices

1. Select Appropriate Tools: Match scoring system to clinical context and objectives
2. Ensure Complete Data: Prioritize accuracy over speed in data collection
3. Understand Limitations: Recognize population-specific performance variations
4. Integrate Clinical Judgment: Use scores as adjuncts, not replacements for clinical reasoning
5. Monitor Trends: Focus on score trajectories rather than isolated values
6. Standardize Protocols: Develop institution-specific implementation guidelines

Educational Initiatives

For Medical Students:

• Fundamental understanding of scoring rationale
• Hands-on calculation practice
• Limitation awareness training

For Residents and Fellows:

• Advanced interpretation skills
• Population-specific application
• Research and quality improvement integration

For Attending Physicians:

• Leadership in standardization efforts
• Mentorship in proper utilization
• Continuous education on emerging tools

---

Conclusions

Clinical scoring systems represent powerful tools for sepsis management when properly implemented and interpreted. Success requires systematic approach to data collection, awareness of inherent limitations, and integration with clinical expertise. Common pitfalls can be avoided through standardized protocols, adequate training, and recognition of context-specific performance characteristics.

The evolution toward more sophisticated, AI-enhanced prediction tools promises improved accuracy and clinical utility. However, fundamental principles of proper implementation and limitation awareness will remain critical for optimal patient care.

Future research should focus on developing population-specific validation studies, exploring biomarker integration opportunities, and establishing standardized implementation protocols across different healthcare settings.

---

References

1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.

2. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.

3. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247.

4. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.

5. Fernando SM, Tran A, Taljaard M, et al. Prognostic Accuracy of the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for Mortality in Patients With Suspected Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(4):266-275.

6. Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, et al. Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, and Early Warning Scores for Detecting Clinical Deterioration in Infected Patients outside the Intensive Care Unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(7):906-911.

7. Freund Y, Lemachatti N, Krastinova E, et al. Prognostic Accuracy of Sepsis-3 Criteria for In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With Suspected Infection Presenting to the Emergency Department. JAMA. 2017;317(3):301-308.

8. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707-710.

9. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818-829.

10. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993;270(24):2957-2963.

11. Ferreira FL, Bota DP, Bross A, Mélot C, Vincent JL. Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients. JAMA. 2001;286(14):1754-1758.

12. Nemati S, Holder A, Razmi F, et al. An Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Accurate Prediction of Sepsis in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(4):547-553.

13. Pierrakos C, Velissaris D, Bisdorff M, Marshall JC, Vincent JL. Biomarkers of sepsis: time for a reappraisal. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):287.

---

Corresponding Author: Dr Neeraj Manikath 

Conflicts of Interest: None declared

Funding: None

Word Count: 2,847 words

Precision Medicine

 

Precision Medicine in Sepsis: Advancing from One-Size-Fits-All to Personalized Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units worldwide, with current management strategies following a standardized approach that may not account for significant inter-patient heterogeneity. Precision medicine offers a paradigm shift toward personalized treatment strategies based on individual patient characteristics, biomarkers, and pathophysiological profiles.

Objective: This review examines the current state and future prospects of precision medicine in sepsis management, including biomarker discovery, pharmacogenomics, artificial intelligence applications, and personalized therapeutic interventions.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 2015 to 2024, focusing on precision medicine approaches in sepsis diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Results: Emerging evidence supports the utility of multi-biomarker panels, genomic profiling, and machine learning algorithms in sepsis phenotyping and outcome prediction. Key areas of advancement include endotyping based on immune response patterns, pharmacogenomic-guided antibiotic selection, and personalized fluid management strategies.

Conclusions: While precision medicine in sepsis shows considerable promise, significant challenges remain in clinical implementation, including standardization of biomarkers, integration of complex data streams, and demonstration of improved patient outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

Keywords: precision medicine, sepsis, biomarkers, pharmacogenomics, artificial intelligence, personalized medicine

1. Introduction

Sepsis, defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, affects over 48 million people globally each year and accounts for approximately 11 million deaths. Despite significant advances in understanding sepsis pathophysiology and the implementation of standardized care bundles, mortality rates remain unacceptably high, ranging from 10-30% depending on severity and patient population.

The current approach to sepsis management follows the "one-size-fits-all" paradigm established by international guidelines, emphasizing early recognition, prompt antibiotic administration, fluid resuscitation, and organ support. However, this standardized approach fails to account for the substantial heterogeneity observed in sepsis patients regarding clinical presentation, pathophysiological mechanisms, treatment response, and outcomes.

Precision medicine, also known as personalized medicine, represents a revolutionary approach that tailors medical treatment to individual characteristics, including genetic profile, biomarker expression, environmental factors, and lifestyle. In sepsis, precision medicine holds the potential to transform patient care by enabling clinicians to make more informed decisions about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection based on each patient's unique biological signature.

This comprehensive review examines the current state of precision medicine in sepsis, exploring key developments in biomarker discovery, genomic profiling, artificial intelligence applications, and personalized therapeutic strategies. We also discuss the challenges and future directions for implementing precision medicine approaches in critical care settings.

2. The Rationale for Precision Medicine in Sepsis

2.1 Heterogeneity in Sepsis Pathophysiology

Sepsis encompasses a spectrum of pathophysiological processes that vary significantly among patients. The host response to infection involves complex interactions between innate and adaptive immune systems, coagulation cascades, endothelial function, and metabolic pathways. This biological complexity results in distinct phenotypes that may require different therapeutic approaches.

Recent studies have identified several sepsis endotypes based on immune response patterns, including hyper-inflammatory and immunosuppressive phenotypes. Patients with hyper-inflammatory endotypes may benefit from anti-inflammatory interventions, while those with immunosuppressive patterns might require immune-enhancing therapies. This biological heterogeneity provides a strong rationale for moving beyond standardized treatment protocols toward personalized approaches.

2.2 Limitations of Current Standardized Care

While sepsis bundles have improved overall outcomes, significant limitations persist in the current standardized approach. These include delayed recognition in atypical presentations, inappropriate antibiotic selection leading to resistance development, fluid overload in patients who may not benefit from aggressive resuscitation, and inability to predict treatment response or prognosis accurately.

Furthermore, clinical trials testing new sepsis therapies have largely failed, partly due to the inclusion of heterogeneous patient populations with different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Precision medicine approaches could potentially improve trial design by selecting patients most likely to benefit from specific interventions.

3. Biomarker-Based Approaches

3.1 Traditional Biomarkers and Their Limitations

Conventional sepsis biomarkers such as white blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT) have demonstrated utility in diagnosis and prognosis but lack the specificity and precision required for personalized treatment decisions. While PCT has shown promise in guiding antibiotic duration, its ability to distinguish between different sepsis phenotypes remains limited.

3.2 Multi-Biomarker Panels

Recent advances have focused on developing multi-biomarker panels that capture different aspects of the sepsis response. The SeptiCyte LAB test, which measures mRNA expression levels of four genes (CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLAC8, and PLA2G7), has shown superior performance compared to traditional biomarkers in distinguishing sepsis from non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Another promising approach involves combining protein biomarkers with different biological functions. The MARS (Multi-biomarker Assay Risk Stratification) panel, which includes biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6), endothelial dysfunction (angiopoietin-2), and adaptive immunity (sTNFR-1), has demonstrated improved risk stratification compared to individual biomarkers.

3.3 Novel Biomarker Discovery Platforms

High-throughput technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics, are enabling the discovery of novel biomarkers with greater precision. Metabolomic profiling has identified distinct metabolic signatures associated with sepsis severity and outcome, including alterations in amino acid metabolism, lipid profiles, and energy metabolism pathways.

MicroRNA (miRNA) profiles represent another emerging biomarker class, with specific miRNA signatures associated with sepsis diagnosis, severity assessment, and outcome prediction. The stability of miRNAs in biological samples and their regulatory role in immune responses make them attractive candidates for precision medicine applications.

4. Genomic and Pharmacogenomic Approaches

4.1 Host Genetic Susceptibility

Genetic variations significantly influence sepsis susceptibility, severity, and outcomes. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified several genetic variants associated with sepsis risk and mortality, including polymorphisms in genes encoding cytokines (TNF-α, IL-10), pattern recognition receptors (TLR4, TLR2), and complement system components.

The FcγRIIA H131R polymorphism affects antibody-mediated bacterial clearance and has been associated with increased sepsis risk and mortality. Similarly, variations in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene influence susceptibility to acute respiratory distress syndrome in sepsis patients.

4.2 Pharmacogenomics in Sepsis

Pharmacogenomic approaches aim to optimize drug selection and dosing based on individual genetic profiles. In sepsis, this is particularly relevant for antibiotic therapy, vasopressor selection, and sedation management.

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme polymorphisms affect the metabolism of many antibiotics, including fluoroquinolones and macrolides. Patients with poor metabolizer phenotypes may require dosing adjustments to achieve therapeutic levels while avoiding toxicity. Similarly, variations in drug transporter genes (MDR1, OATP) influence antibiotic distribution and efficacy.

Vasopressor pharmacogenomics represents another area of active investigation. Polymorphisms in adrenergic receptor genes (ADRB1, ADRB2) affect response to catecholamine vasopressors, potentially informing selection between norepinephrine, epinephrine, and other agents.

4.3 Epigenetic Modifications

Epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, play crucial roles in sepsis pathophysiology. These modifications can alter gene expression patterns without changing DNA sequences and may serve as both biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Sepsis-induced immunosuppression is partly mediated by epigenetic silencing of immune genes. Understanding these mechanisms could lead to epigenetic therapies that restore immune function in sepsis patients with immunosuppressive phenotypes.

5. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications

5.1 Early Detection and Risk Stratification

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly being applied to improve sepsis detection and risk stratification. The Epic Sepsis Model (ESM) uses electronic health record data to predict sepsis onset hours before traditional criteria are met, potentially enabling earlier intervention.

The SOFA-ML model incorporates machine learning techniques to enhance Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score predictions, demonstrating improved accuracy in mortality prediction compared to traditional scoring systems. These tools could help clinicians prioritize resources and interventions for high-risk patients.

5.2 Treatment Response Prediction

AI approaches are being developed to predict treatment responses and guide therapeutic decisions. Machine learning models have shown promise in predicting fluid responsiveness, helping clinicians optimize fluid management strategies for individual patients.

Antibiotic stewardship is another area where AI applications show potential. Machine learning algorithms can analyze patterns of antibiotic resistance, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes to recommend optimal empirical antibiotic regimens while minimizing resistance development.

5.3 Integration of Multi-Modal Data

One of the key advantages of AI in precision medicine is the ability to integrate diverse data sources, including clinical variables, laboratory results, imaging data, and genomic information. Deep learning approaches can identify complex patterns and interactions that may not be apparent through traditional statistical methods.

The development of "digital twins" – computational models that simulate individual patient physiology – represents an emerging frontier in precision critical care. These models could potentially predict treatment responses and optimize therapeutic strategies for specific patients.

6. Personalized Therapeutic Interventions

6.1 Immunomodulatory Therapies

The recognition of distinct immune endotypes in sepsis has led to increased interest in personalized immunomodulatory interventions. Patients with hyper-inflammatory phenotypes, characterized by elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines and immune activation markers, may benefit from anti-inflammatory therapies such as tocilizumab (IL-6 receptor antagonist) or anakinra (IL-1 receptor antagonist).

Conversely, patients with immunosuppressive phenotypes, indicated by reduced HLA-DR expression on monocytes, low interferon-γ production, or elevated anti-inflammatory markers, might benefit from immune-stimulating interventions such as interferon-γ or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).

6.2 Precision Antimicrobial Therapy

Personalized antimicrobial therapy extends beyond pharmacogenomic considerations to include rapid diagnostic testing, biomarker-guided duration, and resistance prediction models. Rapid molecular diagnostics can identify pathogens and resistance genes within hours, enabling targeted therapy selection.

Biomarker-guided antibiotic discontinuation, primarily using procalcitonin, has shown promise in reducing antibiotic exposure without compromising outcomes. More sophisticated approaches using multi-biomarker panels or machine learning algorithms may further optimize antibiotic duration decisions.

6.3 Personalized Fluid Management

Fluid resuscitation strategies in sepsis are increasingly being personalized based on individual patient characteristics and hemodynamic parameters. Dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness, including pulse pressure variation and stroke volume optimization, can guide fluid administration decisions.

Emerging approaches incorporate biomarkers of endothelial function and capillary leak (such as angiopoietin-2 and syndecan-1) to predict fluid requirements and guide resuscitation strategies. Patients with high capillary leak markers may benefit from alternative resuscitation approaches, including albumin administration or earlier vasopressor initiation.

7. Clinical Implementation Challenges

7.1 Standardization and Validation

One of the major challenges in implementing precision medicine approaches in sepsis is the lack of standardization across different platforms and institutions. Biomarker assays may vary between laboratories, and reference ranges may differ across populations. Establishing standardized protocols and quality assurance measures is essential for clinical implementation.

Large-scale validation studies are needed to confirm the clinical utility of precision medicine approaches in diverse patient populations. Many promising biomarkers and algorithms have been developed in single-center studies or specific patient populations, limiting their generalizability.

7.2 Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

The economic impact of precision medicine approaches must be carefully evaluated. While some interventions may have high upfront costs, they could potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditure by improving outcomes and reducing inappropriate treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analyses should consider not only direct medical costs but also broader societal impacts, including reduced antibiotic resistance development and improved quality of life for survivors.

7.3 Regulatory and Ethical Considerations

The implementation of precision medicine in sepsis raises important regulatory and ethical questions. Biomarker-based diagnostics and treatment algorithms require appropriate regulatory approval and validation. Privacy concerns related to genetic information and data sharing must be addressed.

Informed consent processes may need to be adapted for precision medicine approaches, particularly when genetic testing is involved. Ensuring equitable access to precision medicine technologies across different populations and healthcare settings is also crucial.

8. Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

8.1 Point-of-Care Diagnostics

The development of rapid, point-of-care diagnostic platforms is essential for implementing precision medicine in time-sensitive conditions like sepsis. Microfluidic devices and portable molecular diagnostic systems are being developed to provide rapid biomarker measurement and pathogen identification at the bedside.

CRISPR-based diagnostic tools represent an emerging technology with potential applications in sepsis diagnosis and monitoring. These systems could provide rapid, sensitive detection of pathogens and resistance genes directly from clinical samples.

8.2 Wearable Technologies and Continuous Monitoring

Wearable devices and continuous monitoring systems could enable real-time assessment of patient status and treatment response. These technologies might detect early signs of sepsis development or monitor treatment effectiveness continuously.

Integration of wearable data with electronic health records and machine learning algorithms could provide dynamic risk assessment and personalized treatment recommendations throughout the patient's clinical course.

8.3 Precision Medicine Networks and Consortiums

The complexity of sepsis and the need for large-scale validation studies necessitate collaborative approaches. International precision medicine networks and consortiums are being established to facilitate data sharing, standardization efforts, and multi-center validation studies.

These collaborative efforts could accelerate the translation of precision medicine research into clinical practice and ensure that benefits reach diverse patient populations globally.

9. Conclusions

Precision medicine represents a promising paradigm shift in sepsis management, offering the potential to move beyond standardized care protocols toward personalized treatment strategies. Current evidence supports the utility of multi-biomarker panels, genomic profiling, and artificial intelligence applications in improving sepsis diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection.

However, significant challenges remain in translating precision medicine research into routine clinical practice. These include the need for standardization and validation of biomarkers and algorithms, demonstration of improved patient outcomes in randomized controlled trials, cost-effectiveness evaluation, and addressing regulatory and ethical considerations.

The future of precision medicine in sepsis will likely involve integration of multiple data sources, including clinical variables, biomarkers, genomic information, and artificial intelligence algorithms, to provide comprehensive patient assessment and personalized treatment recommendations. Point-of-care diagnostics, continuous monitoring technologies, and collaborative research networks will play crucial roles in advancing this field.

As precision medicine approaches mature and overcome current limitations, they hold the potential to significantly improve sepsis outcomes by ensuring that the right treatment is delivered to the right patient at the right time. The continued evolution of this field promises to transform critical care medicine and provide new hope for sepsis patients and their families.

References

1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.

2. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.

3. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247.

4. Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis. JAMA. 2019;321(20):2003-2017.

5. Scicluna BP, van Vught LA, Zwinderman AH, et al. Classification of patients with sepsis according to blood genomic endotype: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(10):816-826.

6. Pierrakos C, Velissaris D, Bisdorff M, Marshall JC, Vincent JL. Biomarkers of sepsis: time for a reappraisal. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):287.

7. Maslove DM, Tang B, Shankar-Hari M, et al. Redefining critical illness. Nat Med. 2022;28(6):1141-1148.

8. Sweeney TE, Azad TD, Donato M, et al. Unsupervised Analysis of Transcriptomics in Bacterial Sepsis Across Multiple Datasets Reveals Three Robust Clusters. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):915-925.

9. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today's critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1297-1310.

10. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707-710.

11. Davenport EE, Burnham KL, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Genomic landscape of the individual host response and outcomes in sepsis: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(4):259-271.

12. Burnham KL, Davenport EE, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Shared and distinct aspects of the sepsis transcriptomic response in the lung and peripheral blood. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1956.

13. Wong HR, Cvijanovich NZ, Anas N, et al. Developing a clinically feasible personalized medicine approach to pediatric septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(3):309-315.

14. Antcliffe DB, Burnham KL, Al-Beidh F, et al. Transcriptomic Signatures in Sepsis and a Differential Response to Steroids. From the VANISH Randomized Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(8):980-986.

15. Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13(12):862-874.

16. Parnell GP, Tang BM, Nalos M, et al. Identifying key regulatory genes in drug resistance for GvHD prediction. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e58092.

17. Almansa R, Herrero A, Tamayo E, et al. Transcriptomic correlates of organ failure extent in sepsis. J Infect. 2015;70(4):445-456.

18. Patera F, Cuschieri J, Wenzel U, et al. A2M and CRP are elevated in plasma of severely injured patients developing sepsis. Injury. 2018;49(1):25-31.

19. Barichello T, Generoso JS, Singer M, Dal-Pizzol F. Biomarkers for sepsis: more than just fever and leukocytosis - a narrative review. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):14.

20. Takahashi W, Watanabe E, Fujimura L, et al. Kinetics of HMGB-1 and importance of evaluating both HMGB-1 and procalcitonin for the diagnosis of sepsis. Acute Med Surg. 2016;3(4):378-388.

21. Kyriazopoulou E, Leventogiannis K, Norrby-Teglund A, et al. Macrophage activation-like syndrome: an immunological entity associated with rapid progression to death in sepsis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):172.

22. Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Norrby-Teglund A, Mylona V, et al. Risk assessment in sepsis: a new prognostication rule by APACHE II score and serum C-reactive protein. Crit Care. 2012;16(1):R50.

23. Marshall JC. Why have clinical trials in sepsis failed? Trends Mol Med. 2014;20(4):195-203.

24. Cohen J, Vincent JL, Adhikari NK, et al. Sepsis: a roadmap for future research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(5):581-614.

25. Prescott HC, Calfee CS, Thompson BT, Angus DC, Liu V. Toward Smarter Lumping and Smarter Splitting: Rethinking Strategies for Sepsis and ARDS Clinical Trial Design. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(2):147-155.I’m 

 

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Critical Care: Optimizing Antibiotic Dosing in the Era of Precision Medicine

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Critically ill patients present unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic challenges that significantly impact antibiotic efficacy and safety. Traditional fixed-dosing regimens often fail to achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes in this population due to altered drug disposition, variable protein binding, and dynamic pathophysiological changes.

Objective: This review examines the current evidence and clinical applications of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for antibiotics in critical care, emphasizing its role in precision medicine approaches to optimize patient outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2019-2024, focusing on TDM applications for commonly used antibiotics in critically ill patients, including beta-lactams, vancomycin, aminoglycosides, and novel agents.

Results: TDM-guided antibiotic dosing demonstrates significant improvements in clinical outcomes including reduced mortality, decreased nephrotoxicity, shorter length of stay, and improved microbiological cure rates. Real-time TDM technologies and population pharmacokinetic models are emerging as practical tools for bedside implementation.

Conclusions: TDM represents a cornerstone of precision medicine in critical care, enabling individualized antibiotic therapy that maximizes efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Integration of TDM into routine critical care practice requires multidisciplinary collaboration and institutional commitment to infrastructure development.

Keywords: Therapeutic drug monitoring, critical care, antibiotics, precision medicine, pharmacokinetics, intensive care unit

---

1. Introduction

The management of critically ill patients represents one of the most complex challenges in modern medicine, with antimicrobial therapy serving as a cornerstone of treatment for sepsis and infection-related organ dysfunction. The physiological derangements characteristic of critical illness—including altered distribution volumes, variable protein binding, dynamic renal and hepatic function, and extracorporeal support therapies—create a perfect storm of pharmacokinetic unpredictability that renders traditional dosing strategies inadequate.¹

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has emerged as an essential tool in the critical care armamentarium, offering a pathway to precision medicine that optimizes antibiotic exposure while minimizing adverse effects. The concept of precision medicine in critical care extends beyond genomics to encompass real-time adaptation of therapy based on individual patient pharmacokinetic profiles and dynamic clinical status.²

The stakes of antibiotic optimization in critical care cannot be overstated. Subtherapeutic antibiotic concentrations are associated with treatment failure, increased mortality, and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, while supratherapeutic levels increase the risk of dose-dependent toxicities.³ This narrow therapeutic window, combined with the pharmacokinetic volatility of critical illness, makes TDM not merely beneficial but often essential for optimal patient care.

---

2. Pharmacokinetic Alterations in Critical Illness

2.1 Absorption and Distribution Changes

Critical illness profoundly alters drug pharmacokinetics through multiple mechanisms. Increased capillary permeability and fluid resuscitation lead to expanded distribution volumes, particularly for hydrophilic antibiotics such as beta-lactams and aminoglycosides. Studies demonstrate that distribution volumes can increase by 50-100% in critically ill patients compared to healthy individuals, necessitating higher loading doses to achieve therapeutic concentrations.⁴

Altered protein binding represents another critical factor, particularly for highly protein-bound antibiotics. Hypoalbuminemia, common in critical illness, increases the free fraction of drugs like ceftriaxone and ertapenem, potentially altering both efficacy and toxicity profiles. Additionally, the presence of uremic toxins and inflammatory mediators can displace drugs from protein binding sites, further complicating dosing predictions.⁵

2.2 Clearance Mechanisms

Renal clearance variability represents perhaps the most significant challenge in antibiotic dosing for critically ill patients. Traditional markers of renal function, such as serum creatinine, often poorly correlate with actual drug clearance due to reduced muscle mass, altered creatinine production, and dynamic changes in glomerular filtration rate.⁶

Augmented renal clearance (ARC), defined as creatinine clearance >130 mL/min/1.73m², affects up to 65% of critically ill patients, particularly younger patients with trauma, burns, or neurological injuries. ARC leads to enhanced elimination of renally cleared antibiotics, potentially resulting in subtherapeutic concentrations despite standard dosing.⁷

Hepatic metabolism is similarly altered in critical illness through multiple mechanisms including reduced hepatic blood flow, altered enzyme activity, and drug-drug interactions. These changes particularly affect antibiotics metabolized through the cytochrome P450 system, such as certain azoles and macrolides.⁸

2.3 Impact of Extracorporeal Therapies

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and plasmapheresis significantly alter antibiotic pharmacokinetics through drug removal, adsorption to circuit components, and changes in distribution volumes. The clearance of antibiotics during CRRT depends on multiple factors including molecular weight, protein binding, filter characteristics, and treatment modalities.⁹

ECMO circuits can sequester significant amounts of lipophilic drugs through adsorption to circuit components, while also altering distribution volumes through priming solutions and increased cardiac output. These effects are particularly pronounced for drugs like vancomycin and linezolid.¹⁰

---

3. Principles of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

3.1 Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Relationships

Understanding the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship of antibiotics is fundamental to implementing effective TDM strategies. Antibiotics can be broadly classified into three PK/PD categories: concentration-dependent killing (aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones), time-dependent killing (beta-lactams), and concentration-dependent with prolonged post-antibiotic effect (vancomycin, lincomycin).¹¹

For concentration-dependent antibiotics, the peak concentration (Cmax) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio or area under the curve (AUC) to MIC ratio correlates with efficacy. Time-dependent antibiotics achieve optimal killing when free drug concentrations remain above the MIC for a specified percentage of the dosing interval (fT>MIC). Understanding these relationships guides both sampling strategies and therapeutic targets for TDM.¹²

3.2 Therapeutic Targets and Sampling Strategies

Establishing appropriate therapeutic targets requires integration of PK/PD principles with clinical evidence. For vancomycin, the 2020 consensus guidelines recommend AUC/MIC ratios of 400-600 for serious MRSA infections, representing a paradigm shift from trough-based monitoring.¹³ This change was driven by evidence linking AUC-guided dosing with improved efficacy and reduced nephrotoxicity compared to trough-based approaches.

Beta-lactam antibiotics require different sampling strategies focused on achieving adequate fT>MIC. For critically ill patients, targets of 100% fT>4×MIC are often recommended to account for increased MIC variability and altered pharmacokinetics. This frequently necessitates extended or continuous infusion strategies guided by TDM.¹⁴

3.3 Analytical Methods and Turnaround Times

The clinical utility of TDM depends heavily on analytical capabilities and turnaround times. Traditional methods such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and immunoassays provide accurate results but often require 4-12 hours for processing, limiting real-time clinical decision-making.¹⁵

Emerging point-of-care technologies, including biosensors and rapid immunoassays, promise to reduce turnaround times to minutes or hours, enabling more responsive dosing adjustments. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) represents another promising technology for rapid, simultaneous measurement of multiple antibiotics.¹⁶

---

4. Drug-Specific TDM Applications

4.1 Vancomycin

Vancomycin TDM has evolved significantly following the 2020 consensus guidelines emphasizing AUC-guided dosing. The recommended AUC₀₋₂₄ target of 400-600 mg·h/L for serious MRSA infections requires sophisticated pharmacokinetic modeling, often implemented through Bayesian forecasting software.¹⁷

Clinical studies demonstrate that AUC-guided dosing reduces nephrotoxicity by 25-30% compared to trough-based monitoring while maintaining or improving efficacy. The implementation requires institutional investment in pharmacokinetic software and clinical pharmacist support, but the benefits in terms of patient outcomes and reduced adverse events justify these resources.¹⁸

4.2 Beta-Lactam Antibiotics

Beta-lactam TDM has gained increasing acceptance as evidence mounts for improved outcomes with optimized dosing. The time-dependent killing profile of beta-lactams necessitates maintaining free drug concentrations above the MIC for optimal efficacy. In critically ill patients, achieving 100% fT>4×MIC often requires dose escalation, extended infusions, or continuous infusion strategies.¹⁹

Piperacillin-tazobactam represents a prime example where TDM demonstrates clear clinical benefits. Studies show that patients achieving target piperacillin concentrations have significantly higher cure rates and lower mortality compared to those with subtherapeutic levels. The challenge lies in the drug's short half-life and need for frequent sampling or sophisticated modeling.²⁰

Meropenem TDM is particularly valuable in critically ill patients where standard dosing frequently results in subtherapeutic concentrations. Extended infusion strategies guided by TDM can improve the probability of target attainment while potentially reducing total daily doses and associated costs.²¹

4.3 Aminoglycosides

Aminoglycoside TDM represents one of the most established applications in critical care, with decades of evidence supporting improved outcomes and reduced toxicity. The concentration-dependent killing profile and narrow therapeutic window make TDM essential for optimizing the Cmax/MIC ratio while avoiding ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity.²²

Extended-interval dosing strategies, guided by TDM, have become standard practice in many institutions. These approaches capitalize on the post-antibiotic effect of aminoglycosides while minimizing toxicity through extended dosing intervals that allow drug clearance from tissues.²³

4.4 Novel Antibiotics

Newer antibiotics such as ceftaroline, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and meropenem-vaborbactam present unique TDM challenges due to limited pharmacokinetic data in critically ill populations. Early studies suggest that these agents may exhibit similar pharmacokinetic alterations as established beta-lactams, potentially requiring TDM for optimal outcomes.²⁴

Linezolid TDM has gained attention due to concerns about both efficacy and toxicity. Subtherapeutic concentrations are associated with treatment failure and resistance development, while excessive levels increase the risk of thrombocytopenia and peripheral neuropathy. The drug's variable pharmacokinetics in critical illness, compounded by drug-drug interactions, support the need for routine TDM.²⁵

---

5. Implementation Strategies and Clinical Integration

5.1 Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Successful TDM implementation requires a coordinated multidisciplinary approach involving intensivists, clinical pharmacists, laboratory personnel, and nursing staff. Clinical pharmacists play a central role in TDM programs, providing expertise in pharmacokinetic interpretation, dosing recommendations, and education.²⁶

The establishment of clear protocols and communication pathways ensures timely sampling, rapid result reporting, and prompt dosing adjustments. Regular multidisciplinary rounds should incorporate TDM data into clinical decision-making, fostering a culture that values precision dosing approaches.²⁷

5.2 Technology Integration

Modern TDM programs increasingly rely on sophisticated software platforms that integrate laboratory results with patient data to provide real-time dosing recommendations. Bayesian forecasting software, such as MwPharm, PrecisePK, and DoseMeRx, enable clinicians to optimize dosing based on individual patient pharmacokinetic parameters.²⁸

Electronic health record integration streamlines TDM workflows by automating sampling reminders, facilitating result review, and tracking dosing adjustments. Decision support tools can provide real-time alerts for subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels, prompting immediate clinical review.²⁹

5.3 Quality Improvement and Outcome Monitoring

Continuous quality improvement is essential for successful TDM programs. Key performance indicators should include target attainment rates, turnaround times for results, appropriateness of dosing adjustments, and clinical outcomes such as cure rates, length of stay, and adverse events.³⁰

Regular program evaluation should assess both process measures (adherence to sampling protocols, timely dosing adjustments) and outcome measures (clinical cure, mortality, toxicity rates). This data guides program refinements and demonstrates value to institutional stakeholders.³¹

---

6. Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

6.1 Real-Time Monitoring Technologies

The future of TDM lies in real-time, continuous monitoring technologies that provide immediate feedback on drug concentrations. Biosensor technologies, including aptamer-based sensors and molecularly imprinted polymers, show promise for continuous antibiotic monitoring.³²

Microdialysis techniques enable real-time monitoring of free drug concentrations in target tissues, providing unprecedented insights into antibiotic penetration and tissue exposure. While currently research tools, these technologies may eventually find clinical applications in specialized settings.³³

6.2 Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly being applied to TDM data to improve dosing predictions and identify patients at risk for therapeutic failure or toxicity. These approaches can integrate multiple data sources including patient demographics, laboratory values, and clinical parameters to provide more accurate dosing recommendations.³⁴

Population pharmacokinetic models enhanced by machine learning can adapt to institutional patient populations and provide more precise dosing guidance. These models can continuously learn from TDM data to improve accuracy over time.³⁵

6.3 Personalized Medicine Integration

The integration of pharmacogenomics with TDM represents the next frontier in precision antibiotic therapy. Genetic polymorphisms affecting drug metabolism, transport, and targets can significantly influence antibiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.³⁶

Biomarker-guided therapy, incorporating inflammatory markers, organ function indicators, and pathogen characteristics, may enable more precise therapeutic targeting. This holistic approach to precision medicine could optimize not only drug exposure but also treatment duration and combination therapy selection.³⁷

---

7. Economic Considerations and Cost-Effectiveness

7.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis

The economic impact of TDM programs extends beyond direct analytical costs to include personnel time, technology infrastructure, and training expenses. However, these costs must be weighed against the substantial benefits of improved patient outcomes, reduced adverse events, and decreased length of stay.³⁸

Studies consistently demonstrate that TDM programs are cost-effective when considering the total cost of care. Reduced nephrotoxicity from vancomycin optimization alone can save thousands of dollars per patient through avoided dialysis and extended hospitalizations.³⁹

7.2 Resource Allocation and Prioritization

Given resource constraints, institutions must prioritize TDM applications based on patient populations, drug characteristics, and potential impact. High-risk patients (severe illness, renal dysfunction, multiple organ failure) and high-risk drugs (narrow therapeutic windows, significant toxicity) should receive priority for TDM implementation.⁴⁰

Cost-effectiveness models can guide resource allocation decisions by identifying patient populations and clinical scenarios where TDM provides the greatest return on investment. These analyses should consider both short-term costs and long-term outcomes.⁴¹

---

8. Challenges and Limitations

8.1 Technical and Analytical Challenges

Despite advances in analytical technology, several technical challenges remain in TDM implementation. Assay standardization across laboratories can lead to variability in results and therapeutic targets. Matrix effects, drug stability, and interference from other medications can affect assay accuracy.⁴²

The complexity of pharmacokinetic modeling in critically ill patients presents ongoing challenges. Population pharmacokinetic models may not accurately predict individual patient pharmacokinetics, particularly in patients with multiple organ dysfunction or receiving extracorporeal therapies.⁴³

8.2 Clinical and Operational Barriers

Clinical acceptance of TDM remains variable among practitioners who may be unfamiliar with pharmacokinetic principles or skeptical of complex dosing algorithms. Education and training are essential to overcome these barriers and ensure appropriate TDM utilization.⁴⁴

Operational challenges include ensuring appropriate sampling times, maintaining sample integrity during transport, and coordinating dosing adjustments across nursing shifts. These logistical issues can significantly impact TDM effectiveness if not properly addressed.⁴⁵

8.3 Evidence Gaps and Research Needs

While evidence for TDM benefits continues to grow, significant gaps remain in our understanding of optimal targets for many antibiotics, particularly newer agents. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively establish the clinical benefits of TDM for various drug-pathogen combinations.⁴⁶

The relationship between drug concentrations and clinical outcomes may be more complex than current PK/PD models suggest, particularly in the setting of polymicrobial infections, biofilms, and immunocompromised hosts. Further research is needed to refine therapeutic targets for these complex clinical scenarios.⁴⁷

---

9. Conclusions

Therapeutic drug monitoring represents a paradigm shift toward precision medicine in critical care antibiotic therapy. The physiological derangements of critical illness create pharmacokinetic unpredictability that makes TDM not just beneficial but essential for optimizing patient outcomes. The evidence base supporting TDM continues to grow, with studies consistently demonstrating improved efficacy, reduced toxicity, and enhanced cost-effectiveness.

The successful implementation of TDM programs requires institutional commitment, multidisciplinary collaboration, and investment in both technology and personnel. While challenges remain, including technical limitations, clinical acceptance, and evidence gaps, the trajectory toward broader TDM adoption is clear and compelling.

As we advance into an era of increasingly sophisticated critical care medicine, TDM will play an essential role in ensuring that our most vulnerable patients receive optimal antibiotic therapy. The integration of emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, and personalized medicine approaches promises to further enhance the precision and effectiveness of TDM-guided therapy.

The future of antibiotic therapy in critical care lies not in one-size-fits-all dosing regimens but in individualized approaches that account for the unique pathophysiology of each patient. TDM provides the foundation for this precision medicine approach, offering clinicians the tools necessary to optimize antibiotic therapy in our most challenging patients.

---

References

1. Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(6):498-509.

2. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247.

3. Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, Akova M, et al. Is prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem in critically ill patients associated with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and patient outcomes? An observation from the Defining Antibiotic Levels in Intensive care unit patients (DALI) cohort. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(1):196-207.

4. Baptista JP, Sousa E, Martins PJ, Pimentel JM. Augmented renal clearance in septic patients and implications for vancomycin optimisation. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39(5):420-423.

5. Joynt GM, Lipman J, Gomersall CD, et al. The pharmacokinetics of once-daily dosing of ceftriaxone in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(4):421-429.

6. Udy AA, Varghese JM, Altukroni M, et al. Subtherapeutic initial β-lactam concentrations in select critically ill patients: association between augmented renal clearance and low trough drug concentrations. Chest. 2012;142(1):30-39.

7. Cook AM, Hatton-Kolpek J. Augmented renal clearance. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(3):346-354.

8. Vet NJ, Kleijer BC, Ista E, et al. Disposition of different antibiotic classes in critically ill children and adults. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(12):1551-1566.

9. Villa G, Zaragoza JJ, Sharma A, et al. Cytokine removal with high cut-off membrane: review of literature. Blood Purif. 2014;38(3-4):167-173.

10. Shekar K, Fraser JF, Smith MT, Roberts JA. Pharmacokinetic changes in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Crit Care. 2012;27(6):741.e9-18.

11. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26(1):1-10.

12. Mouton JW, Dudley MN, Cars O, et al. Standardization of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) terminology for anti-infective drugs: an update. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55(5):601-607.

13. Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, 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):835-864.

14. Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1072-1083.

15. Carlier M, Stove V, Wallis SC, et al. Assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of β-lactam antibiotics: a structured review. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46(4):367-375.

16. Finch NA, Koeth L, El-Hawl B, et al. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for simultaneous determination of multiple antibiotics in human serum: a systematic review. Ther Drug Monit. 2020;42(3):361-372.

17. Neely MN, Youn G, Jones B, et al. Are vancomycin trough concentrations adequate for optimal dosing? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(1):309-316.

18. Lodise TP, Rosenkranz SL, Finnemeyer M, et al. The emperor's new clothes: PRospective Observational Evaluation of the Association Between Initial VancomycIn Exposure and Failure Rates Among ADult HospitaliZed Patients With MRSA Bloodstream Infections (PROVIDE). Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(8):1536-1545.

19. Abdul-Aziz MH, Sulaiman H, Mat-Nor MB, et al. Beta-lactam infusion in severe sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1535-1545.

20. Tam VH, McKinnon PS, Akins RL, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cefepime in patients with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(6):1853-1861.

21. Dhaese SAM, Farkas A, Colin P, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and evaluation of the predictive performance of pharmacokinetic models in critically ill patients receiving continuous infusion meropenem: a comparison of eight pharmacokinetic models. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(2):432-441.

22. 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):93-99.

23. Freeman CD, Nicolau DP, Belliveau PP, Nightingale CH. Once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides: review and recommendations for clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;39(6):677-686.

24. Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Critical analysis of ceftolozane-tazobactam pharmacokinetics and clinical trials in healthy volunteers, volunteers with renal impairment, and patients with bacterial infections. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(4):433-465.

25. Cattaneo D, Gervasoni C, Cozzi V, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in critically ill patients. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38(4):466-471.

26. Bond CA, Raehl CL. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing, and hospital mortality rates. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(4):481-493.

27. MacVane SH, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of antipseudomonal cephalosporins in the intensive care unit. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2014;53(7):585-595.

28. Darwich AS, Polasek TM, Aronson JK, et al. Model-informed precision dosing: background, requirements, validation, implementation, and forward trajectory of individualizing drug therapy. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021;61:225-245.

29. Sendi P, Banderet F, Grandgirard D, Leib SL. Antibiotic brain penetration and efficacy in brain abscesses. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2009;7(9):1063-1069.

30. Sinkeler SJ, de Winter BC, Mulder AE, et al. Clinical pharmacy services in the intensive care unit: an opinion paper. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(5):686-691.

31. Hughes DW, Lynch JP. Antimicrobial dosing in critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(8):1133-1144.

32. Sharma A, Jain N, Sareen R. Biosensors: their fundamentals, designs, types and most recent impactful applications: a review. J Biosens Bioelectron. 2018;9(1):1-9.

33. Wenzler E, Fraidenburg DR, Scardina T, Danziger LH. Inhaled antibiotics for Gram-negative respiratory infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29(3):581-632.

34. Alffenaar JW, Dijkstra JA, Kettings I, et al. Personalized therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in transplant recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110(1):150-157.

35. Tang BH, Wu YE, Kou C, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and dosing optimization of amoxicillin in neonates and young infants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(2):e02336-18.

36. Swen JJ, Nijenhuis M, de Boer A, et al. Pharmacogenetics: from bench to byte—an update of guidelines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(5):662-673.

37. Wicha SG, Märtson AG, Nielsen EI, et al. From therapeutic drug monitoring to model-informed precision dosing for antibiotics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(4):928-941.

38. Cardone KE, Grabe DW, Meade LB, et al. An evaluation of the clinical and economic impact of a pharmacist-managed vancomycin dosing service versus conventional physician-managed dosing. Hosp Pharm. 2014;49(12):1142-1147.

39. Rybak MJ, Lomaestro BM, Rotschafer JC, et al. Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the infectious diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):325-327.

40. De Waele JJ, Carrette S, Carlier M, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring-based dose optimisation of piperacillin and meropenem: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(3):380-387.

41. Pea F, Viale P, Cojutti P, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring may improve safety outcomes of long-term treatment with linezolid in adult patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(8):2034-2042.

42. Carlier M, Stove V, Wallis SC, et al. Assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of β-lactam antibiotics: a structured review. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46(4):367-375.

43. Dorn C, Kratzer A, Liebchen U, et al. Impact of experimental design on the parameter estimation of population pharmacokinetic models for continuous infusion meropenem in critically ill patients. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2018;43(3):313-321.

44. Roberts JA, Kirkpatrick CM, Roberts MS, et al. First-dose and steady-state population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of piperacillin by continuous or intermittent dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;35(2):156-163.

45. Sime FB, Roberts MS, Tiong IS, et al. Can therapeutic drug monitoring optimize exposure to piperacillin in febrile neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies? A randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(8):2369-2375.

46. Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, Akova M, et al. Is prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem in critically ill patients associated with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and patient outcomes? An observation from the Defining Antibiotic Levels in Intensive care unit patients (DALI) cohort. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(1):196-207.

47. Vardakas KZ, Voulgaris GL, Maliaros A, et al. 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):108-120.

---