ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2019
Telavancin in Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (HAP/VAP) Caused by Staphylococcus aureus: Post Hoc Analysis of 2 Randomized, Controlled Trials.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Advances in the Development of Semisynthetic Glycopeptide Antibiotics: 2014-2022.ACS infectious diseases · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy and safety of telavancin versus vancomycin in microbiologically evaluable patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) caused by Staphylococcus aureus with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥ 1.0 µg/mL was analyzed using data derived from previously reported Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (ATTAIN) trials.
methodsThis post hoc subgroup analysis of two randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials conducted at 274 sites in 38 countries included 194 microbiologically evaluable patients with HAP/VAP caused by monomicrobial S. aureus with vancomycin MIC ≥ 1.0 µg/mL. Patients received intravenous telavancin (10 mg/kg every 24 h) or intravenous vancomycin (1 g every 12 h with site-specific modifications) for 7-21 days. Efficacy was assessed by clinical cure, defined as improvement or non-progression of radiographic findings at end of treatment and resolution of pneumonia signs and symptoms at follow-up/test-of-cure visits, and survival 28 days post-randomization. Safety was assessed from categorical shifts in creatinine clearance during therapy and adverse events (AEs).
resultsClinical cure rates were numerically greater following telavancin versus vancomycin treatment overall (85.4% vs. 74.3%; treatment difference [95% confidence interval (CI)], 11.1% [- 0.002%, 22.2%]) and in patients aged ≥ 65 years (81.6% vs. 66.2%; treatment difference [95% CI], 15.5% [- 0.9%, 30.2%]) patients with VAP (92.3% vs. 47.6%; treatment difference [95% CI], 44.7% [18.1%, 64.9%]), and patients with baseline Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 20 (71.4% vs. 55.6%; treatment difference [95% CI], 15.9% [- 11.7%, 40.5%]). Renal function declined in 7 (7.9%) patients receiving telavancin and 6 (5.7%) patients receiving vancomycin. Survival proportion was numerically higher (85.2% vs. 80.2%; treatment difference [95% CI], 5.0% [- 5.8%, 15.8%]) and AEs were comparable in patients treated with telavancin versus vancomycin.
conclusionTelavancin is an alternative to vancomycin for HAP/VAP caused by S. aureus with vancomycin MIC ≥ 1 µg/mL.
fundingTheravance Biopharma R&D, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
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.