ArticlePaediatric drugs2008
Pharmacodynamic target attainment of oral beta-lactams for the empiric treatment of acute otitis media in children.
Article in Paediatric drugs, 2008. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying Pharmacodynamics and Antimicrobial Stewardship to Pediatric Preseptal and Orbital Cellulitis.Paediatric drugs · 2019Review
- Hollow-fiber pharmacodynamic studies and mathematical modeling to predict the efficacy of amoxicillin for anthrax postexposure prophylaxis in pregnant women and children.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2013Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the probability of oral beta-lactam regimens achieving bactericidal pharmacodynamic exposure against pathogens causing acute otitis media (AOM) given contemporary prevalence and resistance rates.
methodsA 5000-patient Monte Carlo simulation was used to recreate steady-state concentration-time profiles for oral drug administration regimens of amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefpodoxime, cefprozil, ceftibuten, and cefuroxime in a population of 12.5-month-old children. The percent of simulated children in whom free drug concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for 50% of the drug administration interval (50% fT>MIC) were achieved was determined; 180 middle ear fluid isolates (56 Haemophilus influenzae and 124 Streptococcus pneumoniae) collected during the 2004 Global Respiratory Antimicrobial Surveillance Project (GRASP) were used. The cumulative fraction of response (CFR) was calculated and weighted against the prevalence of organisms causing AOM extrapolated from the literature. The contribution of a 'Pollyanna phenomenon' for each organism was also incorporated to estimate clinical effectiveness.
resultsAgainst S. pneumoniae isolates, amoxicillin 30 mg/kg every 8 hours (84.7%) achieved the greatest CFR followed by amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and the other amoxicillin-based regimens. Against H. influenzae isolates, cefpodoxime, ceftibuten, and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid each achieved a CFR of >90%. When weighted by the prevalence of AOM-causing pathogens, CFR was highest for cefpodoxime (87.5%), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (85.7%), and amoxicillin 30 mg/kg every 8 hours (70.8%). The contribution of a 'Pollyanna phenomenon' increased the probability of clinical effectiveness for all agents, with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (90.2%) and cefpodoxime (90.1%) having the highest weighted CFR.
conclusionsBased on the recent epidemiologic and resistance profiles of S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (45 mg/kg every 12 hours) and cefpodoxime (5 mg/kg every 12 hours) provide the greatest likelihood of achieving optimal pharmacodynamic exposures empirically in children with AOM.
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.