ArticleJournal of inflammation (London, England)2010
Pharmacokinetics of Linezolid and Ertapenem in experimental parapneumonic pleural effusion.
Article in Journal of inflammation (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical update on linezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the extent of linezolid and ertapenem penetration into the empyemic fluid using a rabbit model of empyema.
methodsAn empyema was created via the intrapleural injection of Escherichia coli bacteria (ATCC 35218) into the pleural space of New Zealand white rabbits. After an empyema was verified by thoracocentesis, 24 hours post inoculation, linezolid (10 mg/kg) and ertapenem (60 mg/kg) were administered intravenously into 10 and 8 infected empyemic rabbits, respectively. Antibiotic levels were determined in samples of pleural fluid and blood serum, collected serially at 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours, after administration each of the two antibiotics.
resultsLinezolid as well as ertapenem penetrate well into the empyemic pleural fluid, exhibiting a slower onset and decline compared to the corresponding blood serum levels. Equilibration between blood serum and pleural fluid compartments seems to occur at 1.5 hours for both linezolid and ertapenem, with peak pleural fluid levels (Cmaxpf of 2.02 +/- 0.73 <<mu>>g/ml and Cmaxpf of 3.74 +/- 1.39 <<mu>>g/ml, correspondingly) occurring 2 hours post antibiotics administration and decreasing very slowly thereafter. The serum concentrations for both antibiotics were significantly lower from the corresponding pleural fluid ones during the 8 hours collecting data, with the exception of samples collected at the 1st hour (Cmaxserum of 2.1 +/- 1.2 <<mu>>g/ml for linezolid and Cmaxserum of 6.26 +/- 2.98 <<mu>>g/ml for ertapenem).
conclusionPleural fluid levels of both antibiotics are inhibitory for common specified pathogens causing empyema.
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.