Abstract
Therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended for the use of vancomycin, but a recent widely publicized US medical society consensus statement has changed the suggested optimal method(s) of dose adjustment. Specifically, 24 h area under the curve (AUC(24))-based monitoring is has been recommended for vancomycin in preference to monitoring of trough concentrations. One reason cited for this change is the claim that AUC(24) is a superior correlate to efficacy than trough (Cmin). Evidence from a number of retrospective analyses have been critically reviewed and determined to have weaknesses. This narrative review focuses on the experimental studies performed in vivo in animal models of infection and in vitro to determine the extent to which these data may provide a compelling distinction between pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PKPD) parameters that may translate to clinical use in therapeutic drug monitoring. Animal in vivo studies have been presented at conferences, but no original peer reviewed studies could be found that compare various PKPD parameters. These conference proceeding findings were supportive but unconvincing, even though they were favorably presented subsequently in review articles and clinical practice guidelines. In vitro data are somewhat conflicting, but the range of concentrations may play a role in the discrepancies found. It has been suggested that MIC may be assumed to have a value of 1 mg/L; however, it can be demonstrated that this assumption may lead to considerable discrepancy from results with an actual MIC value. The AUC(24) parameter has been weighed against the percentage of time above the MIC (%T > MIC) as a comparative PKPD parameter, yet this may be an inappropriate comparison for vancomycin since all clinically useful dosing provides 100% T > MIC. Regardless, there is a distinction between clinical TDM parameters and PKPD parameters, so, in practice, the change to AUC(24):MIC based on animal experiments and in vitro evidence for vancomycin may be premature.