ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2001
A retrospective analysis of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters as indicators of the clinical efficacy of ceftizoxime.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Results of a double-blind, randomized trial of ceftobiprole treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2008Trial
- Use of Monte Carlo simulations to select therapeutic doses and provisional breakpoints of BAL9141.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2004Article
- Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin as a tool to optimise dosage schedules in community patients.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the relationship between a series of estimated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters and the reported efficacy of ceftizoxime.
designRetrospective literature search and analysis using different correlation models.
methodsThe following parameters were calculated for each group of patients included in the study from the simulated plasma concentration curves corresponding to the dosage regimen administered: (i) peak concentration at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration (CmaxSS/MIC); (ii) the time that the plasma drug concentration exceeded the MIC scaled to 24 hours at steady state [(tSS)24h > MIC]; (iii) the total area under the concentration-time curve over 24 hours at steady state divided by the MIC [(AUC(SS))24h/MIC]; and (iv) the AUC at steady state for the period of time that the concentration is above the MIC over a period of 24 hours divided by the MIC [(AUIC(SS))24h]. A univariate correlation analysis was performed considering efficacy [rate (%) of clinical cure or bacterial eradication] as the dependent variable and the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameter as the independent variable, using linear and nonlinear models.
results(tSS)24h > MIC was the only parameter that was statistically correlated with efficacy, the linear model being the best choice among the 4 relationship approaches tested. A biased frequency distribution of reported efficacy data constricts the correlation analysis to a narrow range of efficacy and hinders interpretation of the results.
conclusionsThe reporting of cases with low efficacy rates as well as those with high efficacy rates, including information on patient idiosyncrasies and the infecting organisms, would be of great help in performing retrospective analyses of the use of antimicrobial agents, leading to the optimisation of therapy with this type of drug in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11286322What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.