Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21895037›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2011

Penetration of anti-infective agents into pulmonary epithelial lining fluid: focus on antibacterial agents.

Keith A Rodvold, Jomy M George, Liz Yoo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

124 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Keith A RodvoldUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, USA. kar@uic.edu
Jomy M George
Liz Yoo
University of Illinois Chicago · USPhiladelphia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The exposure-response relationship of anti-infective agents at the site of infection is currently being re-examined. Epithelial lining fluid (ELF) has been suggested as the site (compartment) of antimicrobial activity against lung infections caused by extracellular pathogens. There have been an extensive number of studies conducted during the past 20 years to determine drug penetration into ELF and to compare plasma and ELF concentrations of anti-infective agents. The majority of these studies estimated ELF drug concentrations by the method of urea dilution and involved either healthy adult subjects or patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy. Antibacterial agents such as macrolides, ketolides, newer fluoroquinolones and oxazolidinones have ELF to plasma concentration ratios of >1. In comparison, β-lactams, aminoglycosides and glycopeptides have ELF to plasma concentration ratios of ≤1. Potential explanations (e.g. drug transporters, overestimation of the ELF volume, lysis of cells) for why these differences in ELF penetration occur among antibacterial classes need further investigation. The relationship between ELF concentrations and clinical outcomes has been under-studied. In vitro pharmacodynamic models, using simulated ELF and plasma concentrations, have been used to examine the eradication rates of resistant and susceptible pathogens and to explain why selected anti-infective agents (e.g. those with ELF to plasma concentration ratios of >1) are less likely to be associated with clinical treatment failures. Population pharmacokinetic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations have recently been used and permit ELF and plasma concentrations to be evaluated with regard to achievement of target attainment rates. These mathematical modelling techniques have also allowed further examination of drug doses and differences in the time courses of ELF and plasma concentrations as potential explanations for clinical and microbiological effects seen in clinical trials. Further studies are warranted in patients with lower respiratory tract infections to confirm and explore the relationships between ELF concentrations, clinical and microbiological outcomes, and pharmacodynamic parameters.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnti-Bacterial AgentsBody Fluid CompartmentsBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidEpitheliumHumansLungMacrophages, AlveolarMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMonte Carlo MethodTissue DistributionAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID21895037
OpenAlexW1787158122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.