Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25224001›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Population pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in children.

V Ramos-Martín, S Paulus, S Siner, E Scott, K Padmore, P Newland, R J Drew, T W Felton, F Docobo-Pérez, B Pizer and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Use of Antibiotics in Preterm Newborns.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

V Ramos-MartínDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology Department, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
S PaulusAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
S SinerAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
E ScottAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
K PadmoreAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
P NewlandAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
R J DrewAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
T W FeltonManchester Academic Health Science Centre, NIHR Translational Research Facility in Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
F Docobo-PérezUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
B PizerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
F PeaInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Santa Maria della Misericordia, Udine, Italy Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
M PeakAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
M A TurnerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
M W BeresfordDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
W W HopeDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology Department, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom william.hope@liverpool.ac.uk.
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena · ESLiverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBOspedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine · IT

Funding

Department of Health CS/08/08/10Medical Research Council G1000417Medical Research Council G1000417/94909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Teicoplanin is frequently administered to treat Gram-positive infections in pediatric patients. However, not enough is known about the pharmacokinetics (PK) of teicoplanin in children to justify the optimal dosing regimen. The aim of this study was to determine the population PK of teicoplanin in children and evaluate the current dosage regimens. A PK hospital-based study was conducted. Current dosage recommendations were used for children up to 16 years of age. Thirty-nine children were recruited. Serum samples were collected at the first dose interval (1, 3, 6, and 24 h) and at steady state. A standard 2-compartment PK model was developed, followed by structural models that incorporated weight. Weight was allowed to affect clearance (CL) using linear and allometric scaling terms. The linear model best accounted for the observed data and was subsequently chosen for Monte Carlo simulations. The PK parameter medians/means (standard deviation [SD]) were as follows: CL, [0.019/0.023 (0.01)] × weight liters/h/kg of body weight; volume, 2.282/4.138 liters (4.14 liters); first-order rate constant from the central to peripheral compartment (Kcp), 0.474/3.876 h(-1) (8.16 h(-1)); and first-order rate constant from peripheral to central compartment (Kpc), 0.292/3.994 h(-1) (8.93 h(-1)). The percentage of patients with a minimum concentration of drug in serum (Cmin) of <10 mg/liter was 53.85%. The median/mean (SD) total population area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 619/527.05 mg · h/liter (166.03 mg · h/liter). Based on Monte Carlo simulations, only 30.04% (median AUC, 507.04 mg · h/liter), 44.88% (494.1 mg · h/liter), and 60.54% (452.03 mg · h/liter) of patients weighing 50, 25, and 10 kg, respectively, attained trough concentrations of >10 mg/liter by day 4 of treatment. The teicoplanin population PK is highly variable in children, with a wider AUC distribution spread than for adults. Therapeutic drug monitoring should be a routine requirement to minimize suboptimal concentrations. (This trial has been registered in the European Clinical Trials Database Registry [EudraCT] under registration number 2012-005738-12.).

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildChild, PreschoolCreatinineFemaleHumansInfantMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMonte Carlo MethodStaphylococcal InfectionsTeicoplaninAnti-Bacterial AgentsCreatinineTeicoplanin

Identifiers

PMID25224001
PMCPMC4249354
OpenAlexW2111739347

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.