ArticleYonsei medical journal2011
Teicoplanin dosing strategy for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus in Korean patients with neutropenic fever.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic insights into endometriosis: roles of Streptococcus agalactiae and L-carnitine in lesion development and angiogenesis.Angiogenesis · 2025Article
- Population pharmacokinetic analysis and dosing regimen optimization of teicoplanin in critically ill patients with sepsis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of peptide antibiotics.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022Review
- Population Pharmacokinetics and Dosage Optimization of Teicoplanin in Children With Different Renal Functions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Population Pharmacokinetics and Model-Based Dosing Optimization of Teicoplanin in Pediatric Patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Evaluating the optimal dose of teicoplanin with therapeutic drug monitoring: not too high for adverse event, not too low for treatment efficacy.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
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
purposeThe present study was conducted to determine and compare the target attainment rate (TAR) between microorganism-nonspecific (C(trough)) and microorganism- specific (AUC24/MIC) targets over two weeks of teicoplanin administration according to several dose regimens for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus in Korean patients with neutropenic fever. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne thousand virtual concentrations were obtained for each dose using the population pharmacokinetic parameters of teicoplanin adopted from a published study. Simulation of 1,000 virtual MICs was performed using the MICs of 78 clinical isolates of S. aureus collected from a hospital in Korea. Thereafter, these simulated MICs were randomly allocated to 1,000 virtual patients in whom the TARs for AUC24/MIC>125 [or 345] and C(trough)>10 [or 20] mg/L were determined. The relationship of the maintenance dose with the steady-state TAR was predicted with respect to the AUC24/MIC>125 [or 345] using logistic analysis.
resultsThe standard dose regimen of teicoplanin showed TARs of about 70% [or 33%] and 70% [or 20%] at steady-state in cases with AUC24/MIC>125 [or 345] and C(trough)>10 [or 20] mg/L, respectively.
conclusionThe current standard dose regimen was predicted to be insufficient to adequately treat S. aureus in Korean patients with neutropenic fever. To assure at least an 80% TAR in this population, dose adjustment of teicoplanin should be considered.
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.