Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2010
Impact of different factors on the probability of clinical response in tigecycline-treated patients with intra-abdominal infections.
Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Daptomycin Exposure and Efficacy and Safety Endpoints To Support Risk-versus-Benefit Considerations.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Trial
- Frequentist and Bayesian pharmacometric-based approaches to facilitate critically needed new antibiotic development: overcoming lies, damn lies, and statistics.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Trial
- Monthly dalbavancin dosing for suppressive therapy: a pharmacokinetic estimation analysis and case series.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- PK-PD Compass: bringing infectious diseases pharmacometrics to the patient's bedside.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2017Article
- Review
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
Patients with intra-abdominal infections differ with regard to the type of infection and the severity of illness. However, the impact of these factors, together with differences in drug exposure, on clinical response is not well understood. Using phase 2 and 3 data for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections, the relative importance of tigecycline exposure, host factors, and disease factors, alone or in combination, for the probability of clinical response was examined. Patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections who received tigecycline intravenously as a 100-mg loading dose followed by 50 mg every 12 h for 5 to 14 days and who had adequate clinical, pharmacokinetic, and response data were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with clinical response. A final multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated six factors based on 123 patients to be predictive of clinical success: a weight of <94 kg (P = 0.026), the absence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in baseline cultures (P = 0.021), an APACHE II score of <13 (P = 0.029), non-Hispanic race (P = 0.005), complicated appendicitis or cholecystitis (P = 0.004), and a ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to the MIC (AUC/MIC ratio) of > or =3.1 (P = 0.003). The average model-predicted probability of clinical success when one unfavorable factor was present was 0.940. This probability was lower (0.855) when the AUC/MIC ratio was < 3.1 and the remaining five factors were set to the favorable condition. The average model-predicted probability of clinical success in the presence of two unfavorable factors was 0.594. These findings demonstrated the impact of individual and multiple factors on clinical response in the context of drug exposure.
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.