ReviewAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014
Alternative strategies for proof-of-principle studies of antibacterial agents.
Review in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. 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.
- Early Clinical Assessment of the Antimicrobial Activity of Finafloxacin Compared to Ciprofloxacin in Subsets of Microbiologically Characterized Isolates.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Trial
- Selective toxicity of antibacterial agents-still a valid concept or do we miss chances and ignore risks?Infection · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proof that a new antibacterial agent is not only active in vitro but also effective in vivo under clinically relevant conditions is currently provided (i) by using appropriate nonclinical models of infection and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) analysis providing evidence of the likelihood of clinical efficacy and (ii) by examining the study drug in exploratory clinical trials, as well as dose and schedule finding during phase II of clinical development. This approach is both time-consuming and costly. Furthermore, PK-PD targets for any novel antibacterial agent cannot be derived from studies with experimental animals. Therefore, alternative strategies have to be identified to prove the principle that a novel antibacterial agent is active under clinically relevant conditions. This review summarizes evidence that the quantitative analysis of shifts in the viable counts of pathogens in infected patients or the evaluation of the PD effect of an investigational agent on indicator organisms of the human resident microflora or colonizers of healthy volunteers, if paralleled with PK monitoring of serum and the target site, provides an alternative to a classical proof-of-principle study in the course of a phase II study program.
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.