Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26445936›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2015

Pharmacodynamics of nine generic products of amikacin compared with the innovator in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model.

Andres F Zuluaga, Carlos A Rodriguez, Maria Agudelo, Omar Vesga

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andres F ZuluagaGRIPE [Grupo Investigador de Problemas en Enfermedades infecciosas], Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín, Colombia. andres.zuluaga@udea.edu.co.
Carlos A RodriguezGRIPE [Grupo Investigador de Problemas en Enfermedades infecciosas], Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín, Colombia. andres.rodriguez@udea.edu.co.
Maria AgudeloGRIPE [Grupo Investigador de Problemas en Enfermedades infecciosas], Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín, Colombia. maria.agudelo2@udea.edu.co.
Omar VesgaGRIPE [Grupo Investigador de Problemas en Enfermedades infecciosas], Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín, Colombia. omar.vesga@udea.edu.co.
Universidad de Antioquia · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreviously, we validated the mouse thigh infection model to test the therapeutic equivalence of generic antibiotic products. Here, our aim was to compare the in vivo efficacy of amikacin products in clinical use in Colombia using this animal model.

resultsAll except one generic product had the same in vitro potency, judging by the lack of differences on MIC and MBC compared with the innovator. However, eight of nine generic products failed in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model to achieve the innovator's maximum effect (E max ≤ 5.65 for the generics vs. 6.58 log10 CFU/g for the innovator) against Escherichia coli SIG-1, after subcutaneous treatment every 6 h with doses ranging from 1.5 to 3072 mg/kg per day.

conclusionAs we demonstrated previously with other antibiotics such as vancomycin, gentamicin and oxacillin, the generic products of amikacin failed the in vivo efficacy testing. The therapeutic equivalence should be assessed in vivo before clinical approval of generic products.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAmikacinAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsEscherichia coli InfectionsMiceNeutropeniaAmikacinAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID26445936
PMCPMC4596513
OpenAlexW2147306935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.