ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2006
Linezolid in prophylaxis against experimental aortic valve endocarditis due to Streptococcus oralis or Enterococcus faecalis.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2006. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetics of Linezolid and Ertapenem in experimental parapneumonic pleural effusion.Journal of inflammation (London, England) · 2010Article
- Single-dose oral amoxicillin or linezolid for prophylaxis of experimental endocarditis due to vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are no experimental studies regarding the prophylactic efficacy of linezolid against infective endocarditis. Nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis of the aortic valve was induced in rabbits by the insertion of a polyethylene catheter. Twenty-four hours later, animals were randomly assigned to a control group, and groups receiving either ampicillin (two doses of 40 mg/kg of body weight each, given intravenously, 2 h apart) or linezolid (a single per os dose of 75 mg/kg). The first dose of ampicillin and the single dose of linezolid were administered 0.5 and 1 h, respectively, prior to the intravenous inoculation of approximately 10(7) CFU of Streptococcus oralis or Enterococcus faecalis. Linezolid peak levels in rabbit serum were similar to the peak serum levels in humans following a 600-mg oral dose of linezolid. Linezolid prevented endocarditis in 87% of S. oralis-challenged rabbits (P < 0.001 versus controls; P = 0.026 versus ampicillin). In rabbits challenged with E. faecalis, linezolid prevented endocarditis in 73% (P = 0.003 versus controls; P = 0.049 versus ampicillin). Ampicillin prevented endocarditis due to S. oralis or due to E. faecalis in 47% (P = 0.005 versus controls) and in 30% (P = not significant versus controls) of the challenged animals, respectively. In conclusion, linezolid was effective as prophylaxis against endocarditis caused by a strain of S. oralis and to a lesser degree against that caused by a strain of E. faecalis. Its prophylactic efficacy was superior to that of ampicillin.
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.