Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27543654›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2016

Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of teicoplanin in neonates: making better use of C-reactive protein to deliver individualized therapy.

V Ramos-Martín, M N Neely, P McGowan, S Siner, K Padmore, M Peak, M W Beresford, M A Turner, S Paulus, W W Hope

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Use of Antibiotics in Preterm Newborns.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Biomarker-Guided Individualization of Antibiotic Therapy.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

V Ramos-MartínMolecular and Clinical Pharmacology Department, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
M N NeelyLaboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics and Bioinformatics, The Saban Research Institute and The Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
P McGowanLiverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
S SinerAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
K PadmoreAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
M PeakAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
M W BeresfordAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
M A TurnerLiverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
S PaulusAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
W W HopeMolecular and Clinical Pharmacology Department, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK william.hope@liverpool.ac.uk.
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBLiverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBChildren's Hospital of Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere is uncertainty about the optimal teicoplanin regimens for neonates. The study aim was to determine the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of teicoplanin in neonates, evaluate currently recommended regimens and explore the exposure-effect relationships.

methodsAn open-label PK study was conducted. Neonates from 26 to 44 weeks post-menstrual age were recruited (n = 18). The teicoplanin regimen was a 16 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 8 mg/kg once daily. Therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustment were not conducted. A standard two-compartment PK model was developed, followed by models that incorporated weight. A PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) model with C-reactive protein serial measurements as the PD input was fitted to the data. Monte Carlo simulations (n = 5000) were performed using Pmetrics. The AUCs at steady state and the proportion of patients achieving the recommended drug exposures (i.e. C

resultsThe PK allometric model best accounted for the observed data. The PK parameters medians were: clearance = 0.435 × (weight/70)

conclusionsTeicoplanin population PK is highly variable in neonates, weight being the best descriptor of PK variability. A low percentage of neonates were able to achieve C

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMonte Carlo MethodTeicoplaninAnti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinTeicoplanin

Identifiers

PMID27543654
PMCPMC5079301
OpenAlexW2517853454

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.