ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2016
A Qualitative Review on the Pharmacokinetics of Antibiotics in Saliva: Implications on Clinical Pharmacokinetic Monitoring in Humans.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can we Predict Drug Excretion into Saliva? A Systematic Review and Analysis of Physicochemical Properties.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Salivary Versus Blood Concentrations of Antituberculosis Drugs and Their Potential for Salivary Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2018Pooled it
- Salivary Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antimicrobial Therapy: Feasible or Futile?Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2024Article
- Current knowledge, challenges and innovations in developmental pharmacology: A combined conect4children Expert Group and European Society for Developmental, Perinatal and Paediatric Pharmacology White Paper.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- Article
- Single-Arm Open-Label Clinical Trial of Two Grams of Aztreonam for the Treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020Article
- Membrane Transporters in Human Parotid Gland-Targeted Proteomics Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Accessing analytes in biofluids for peripheral biochemical monitoring.Nature biotechnology · 2019Review
- Establishment of oral bacterial communities in germ-free mice and the influence of recipient age.Molecular oral microbiology · 2018Article
- Key Components for Antibiotic Dose Optimization of Sepsis in Neonates and Infants.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2018Review
- Membrane Filtration Is Suitable for Reliable Elimination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Saliva for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Revolutionizing Therapeutic Drug Monitoring with the Use of Interstitial Fluid and Microneedles Technology.Pharmaceutics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a systematic search to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the utility of saliva for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring (CPM) of antibiotics. Although the majority of identified studies lacked sufficient pharmacokinetic data needed to assign an appropriate suitability classification, most aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, penicillins/cephalosporins, and tetracyclines are likely not suitable for CPM in saliva. No clear pattern of correlation was observed between physiochemical properties that favor drug distribution into saliva and the likelihood of the antibiotic being classified as suitable for CPM in saliva (and vice versa). Insufficient data were available to determine if pathophysiological conditions affected salivary distribution of antibiotics. Additional confirmatory data are required for drugs (especially in patients) that are deemed likely suitable for CPM in saliva because only a few studies were available and many focused only on healthy subjects. All studies identified had relatively small sample sizes and exhibited large variability. Very few studies reported salivary collection parameters (e.g., salivary flow, pH) that could potentially have some impact on drug distribution into saliva. The available data are heavily weighted on healthy subjects, and insufficient data were available to determine if pathophysiology had effects on saliva drug distribution. Some studies also lacked assay sensitivity for detecting antibiotics in saliva. Overall, this review can be useful to clinicians who desire an overview on the suitability of saliva for conducting CPM of specific antibiotics, or for researchers who wish to fill the identified knowledge gaps to move the science of salivary CPM further.
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.