ArticleInfection2017
Measurement of piperacillin plasma concentrations in cancer patients with suspected infection.
Article in Infection, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPiperacillin (PIP) in combination with tazobactam is commonly used for anti-infective treatment in cancer patients. PIP exerts a time-dependent killing. Thus, the maintenance of plasma concentrations above a pre-defined target concentration for a pre-defined time may be relevant for optimal efficacy. It is assumed that PIP-plasma concentrations above the clinical breakpoint of the target pathogen [Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinical breakpoint at minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) 16 mg/L] should be reached for 100% of the dosing interval or >4xMIC (64 mg/L) for 50% of the dosing interval. Whereas studies in the intensive-care setting have shown underdosing in patients with sepsis, little is known about PIP-plasma concentrations in cancer patients.
methodsData of 56 cancer patients who received piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ, 4.5 g three times daily) as empiric therapy for suspected infection were analysed at baseline and 4 h after the infusion.
resultsMedian trough concentrations in steady state [median 3 days (IQR 3-5) after start of PIP/TAZ] were 4.6 mg/L (95% CI 0.3-136.3) and median PIP-plasma concentrations 4 h after infusion were 46.2 mg/L (95% CI 10.1-285.6). A second evaluation 5 days (IQR 4-7) after start of PIP/TAZ confirmed these results: trough concentrations were 2.7 mg/L (95% CI 0.5-6.3), concentrations after 4 h 28.0 mg/L (95% CI 1.7-47.3). A good renal function was associated with lower plasma concentrations (r = -0.388, p < 0.003). Detailed pharmacokinetic measurements in six patients showed low maximum plasma concentration (median 165 mg/L) and a rapid decline of plasma concentrations (median plasma half time 1.38 h).
conclusionIn conclusion, piperacillin plasma concentrations in cancer patients are below target levels warranting prospective trials to investigate therapeutic drug monitoring.
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.