Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30188918›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Effects of pharmacist intervention in Vancomycin treatment for patients with bacteremia due to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Atsushi Komoto, Takayoshi Maiguma, Daisuke Teshima, Tetsuhiro Sugiyama, Yuto Haruki

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Implementation of a Pharmacist-Driven Vancomycin and Aminoglycoside Dosing Service in a Pediatric Hospital.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Atsushi KomotoGraduate School of Pharmacy, Shujitsu University, Okayama, Okayama, Japan.
Takayoshi MaigumaGraduate School of Pharmacy, Shujitsu University, Okayama, Okayama, Japan.
Daisuke TeshimaGraduate School of Pharmacy, Shujitsu University, Okayama, Okayama, Japan.
Tetsuhiro SugiyamaDepartment of Pharmacy, Tsuyama Chuo Hospital, Tsuyama, Okayama, Japan.
Yuto HarukiDepartment of Pharmacy, Tsuyama Chuo Hospital, Tsuyama, Okayama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9758-4791
Shujitsu University · JPTsuyama Chuo Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted a retrospective study based on composite endpoints for treatment failure to evaluate the effect of pharmacist-led VCM initial dose planning for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia patients.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed between pharmacist intervention and non-intervention groups. In this study, four types of failure were defined as the composite endpoint. When any one of the following failures occurred: 1) Death within 30 days from the start of VCM therapy, 2) Positive blood culture 7 days after the start of VCM therapy, 3) Change of VCM to another anti-MRSA agent, and 4) Development of nephrotoxicity, we considered that VCM treatment had failed. Survival time analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox's proportional hazard model that included seven predefined parameters: pharmacist intervention, age, sex, weight, baseline VCM trough concentration, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and Pitt Bacteremia score (PBS). The effect of pharmacist intervention was studied as the survival probability estimated from the period of time from the start of VCM administration to the earliest failure.

resultsThe survival rate at 30 days after starting VCM therapy, at the end of follow-up, was 53.1 and 82.1% in the non-intervention and intervention groups, respectively. A significant survival time prolongation was noted in the intervention group (p = 0.011, log rank test). Among the seven parameters, only pharmacist intervention was significantly different and its hazard ratio was 0.26 (p = 0.014). The survival probability of the intervention group was higher than that of the non-intervention group for the time to each failure. In subgroup analyses, a significant difference was noted in male patients between the intervention and non-intervention groups (p = 0.005). Age was categorized into those under and over 65 years old. For those over 65 years old, a significant difference was shown between the groups (p = 0.018).

conclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the failure of VCM treatment based on the composite endpoint. Pharmacist intervention through the initial VCM dose planning could maintain a balance between the efficacy and safety of VCM treatment and might avoid treatment failure for patients with MRSA bacteremia. Further investigations with large sample sizes are required to confirm our findings.

Indexed as

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBacteremiaDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesStaphylococcal InfectionsSurvival RateVancomycinVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID30188918
PMCPMC6126860
OpenAlexW2890581544

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.