Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2004
Randomized comparison of serum teicoplanin concentrations following daily or alternate daily dosing in healthy adults.
Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a thrice weekly administration of teicoplanin in the outpatient setting: a retrospective observational multicentre study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Article
- Antibiotic prophylaxis with teicoplanin on alternate days reduces rate of viridans sepsis and febrile neutropenia in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia.Annals of hematology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trough serum teicoplanin concentrations were compared in healthy adults following intravenous administration of one of two regimens: (i) 12 mg/kg of body weight every 12 h for 3 doses and then 15 mg/kg every 48 h for 4 doses (n = 16 subjects) or (ii) 6 mg/kg every 12 h for 2 doses and then 6 mg/kg every 24 h for 9 doses (n = 8 subjects). The mean +/- standard deviation trough concentrations in serum on day 11 (24 and 48 h after administration of the last dose for the daily and alternate-day dosing schedules, respectively) were 16.0 +/- 2.1 and 17.9 +/- 3.5 mg/liter for subjects receiving the two regimens, respectively, by a fluorescence polarization immunoassay. The limits of the 95% confidence interval of the difference (-0.2, 3.6 mg/liter) determined by a nonparametric test were situated above the -1.3-mg/liter maximum set difference and indicated a noninferiority of the alternate-day dosing to the daily dosing. Throughout the study the individual trough concentrations in serum in the alternate-day dosing group constantly exceeded 10 mg/liter, the presently recommended target concentration for the treatment of severe infections. The trough concentrations in the sera of all subjects were bactericidal for six Staphylococcus aureus strains for which teicoplanin MICs are between 0.5 and 4 mg/liter. The bactericidal activity of serum was related to total teicoplanin (protein bound and unbound). In conclusion, an alternate-day dosing schedule (15 mg/kg on alternate days following administration of a 12-mg/kg loading dose three times every 12 h) could be considered for further efficacy and safety studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.