Beta-lactams kill bacteria based on time above MIC — the longer the free drug concentration stays above the MIC, the better the bacterial kill. Changing how you infuse the same total dose can dramatically alter fT>MIC.
Infusion Strategy
Dosing
Cmax,SS
-- mg/L
Cmin,SS
-- mg/L
fT>MIC
-- %
AUC₂₄
-- mg·hr/L
Try it: Switch between strategies while keeping the same dose — watch the curve reshape from sharp peaks to a flat line. Notice how fT>MIC improves even though you give the same total daily dose.
fT>MIC: --
Key concept: All three strategies deliver the same total daily dose — only the infusion duration changes. Longer infusions sacrifice peak height for sustained time above MIC.
2
Side-by-Side Comparison
Overlay multiple strategies on one chart to directly compare concentration profiles and target attainment.
Strategies to Compare
Dosing
Strategy
Cmax
Cmin
fT>MIC
AUC₂₄
Notice: The blue intermittent curve has the highest peaks but drops below MIC the earliest. Extended (green) and continuous (orange) keep concentrations above MIC for longer — at the cost of lower peaks.
3
Clinical Application
When to use each strategy and what to consider in practice.
Intermittent Infusion
0.5h infusion
When to use
Standard dosing for non-critically ill patients
Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT)
Low MIC organisms (susceptible pathogens)
When nursing workflow requires quick administration
Advantages
Simplest to administer — standard clinical practice
High peak concentrations (concentration-dependent effect for some drugs)
Compatible with most Y-site medications
No stability concerns (short infusion time)
Limitations
Lowest fT>MIC of all strategies at equivalent doses
May be insufficient for organisms with higher MICs
Deep trough periods with no bactericidal activity
Extended Infusion
3–4h infusion
When to use
ICU patients with serious infections
Organisms with higher MICs (near breakpoint)
Augmented renal clearance (CrCL > 130 mL/min)
When fT>MIC target is not met with intermittent dosing
Advantages
Significantly improved fT>MIC vs intermittent
Same total daily dose — no extra drug cost
Well-supported by clinical evidence (mortality benefit in meta-analyses)
Practical compromise between intermittent and continuous
Limitations
Requires dedicated IV line during infusion
Must verify drug stability at room temperature for infusion duration
May conflict with other time-critical infusions
Continuous Infusion
24h infusion
When to use
Critically ill patients with high MIC organisms
When extended infusion still does not achieve target
Maximizing fT>MIC (approaches 100%)
Select centers with established CI protocols
Advantages
Maximum fT>MIC — steady-state concentration always above MIC (if Css > MIC)
Most efficient use of total daily dose
Predictable steady-state (Css = Dose/τ ÷ CL)
Easiest to target a specific concentration
Limitations
Requires dedicated IV lumen for 24 hours
Drug stability at room temperature must be confirmed (24h+)
Not all beta-lactams are stable for 24h (check stability data)
Usually requires a loading dose to reach Css quickly
Less clinical outcome data than extended infusion
Summary Reference
Strategy
Typical Setting
fT>MIC Optimization
Key Consideration
Intermittent
General ward, OPAT
Lowest
Simple, standard practice
Extended
ICU, high MIC
Improved
Best evidence for mortality benefit
Continuous
ICU, very high MIC
Maximum
Requires stability data + dedicated line
Key References
Roberts JA, et al. Continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in severe sepsis: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(4):418-425.
Dulhunty JM, et al. Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis: a multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(2):236-244.
Rhodes NJ, et al. Prolonged infusion piperacillin-tazobactam decreases mortality and improves outcomes in severely ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(2):236-243.
Abdul-Aziz MH, et al. Is prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem in critically ill patients associated with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and patient outcomes? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(10):2607-2615.