Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27458209›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2016

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of a Weight-Based Dosing Regimen of Cefoxitin for Perioperative Surgical Prophylaxis in Obese and Morbidly Obese Patients.

Pierre Moine, Scott W Mueller, Jonathan A Schoen, Kevin B Rothchild, Douglas N Fish

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antibiotics in anesthesia and critical care.Annals of translational medicine · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Impact of Obesity on Ceftriaxone Efficacy.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pierre MoineUniversity of Colorado Denver, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Aurora, Colorado, USA pierre.moine@ucdenver.edu.
Scott W MuellerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Jonathan A SchoenUniversity of Colorado Denver, School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Surgical Weight Loss Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Kevin B RothchildUniversity of Colorado Denver, School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Surgical Weight Loss Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Douglas N FishDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
University of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of a weight-based cefoxitin dosing regimen for surgical prophylaxis in obese patients. Patients received a single dose of cefoxitin at 40 mg/kg based on total body weight. Cefoxitin samples were obtained over 3 h from serum and adipose tissue, and concentrations were determined by validated high-performance liquid chromatography. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed, followed by Monte Carlo simulations to estimate probability of target attainment (PTA) for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Bacteroides fragilis over 4-h periods postdose. Thirty patients undergoing bariatric procedures were enrolled. The body mass index (mean ± standard deviation [SD])was 45.9 ± 8.0 kg/m(2) (range, 35.0 to 76.7 kg/m(2)); the median cefoxitin dose was 5 g (range, 4.0 to 7.5 g). The mean maximum concentrations were 216.15 ± 41.80 μg/ml in serum and 12.62 ± 5.89 in tissue; the mean tissue/serum ratio was 8% ± 3%. In serum, weight-based regimens achieved ≥90% PTA (goal time during which free [unbound] drug concentrations exceed pathogen MICs [fT>MIC] of 100%) for E. coli and S. aureus over 2 h and for B. fragilis over 1 h; in tissue this regimen failed to achieve goal PTA at any time point. The 40-mg/kg regimens achieved higher PTAs over longer periods in both serum and tissue than did the standard 2-g doses. However, although weight-based cefoxitin regimens were better than fixed doses, achievement of desired pharmacodynamic targets was suboptimal in both serum and tissue. Alternative dosing regimens and agents should be explored in order to achieve more favorable antibiotic performance during surgical prophylaxis in obese patients.

Indexed as

AdultAntibiotic ProphylaxisBody WeightCefoxitinDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedMonte Carlo MethodObesityObesity, MorbidSurgical Wound InfectionTissue DistributionCefoxitin

Identifiers

PMID27458209
PMCPMC5038324
OpenAlexW2521369213

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.