ArticleThe Pediatric infectious disease journal2020
A Pharmacoepidemiologic Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of Clindamycin in Infants.
Article in The Pediatric infectious disease journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolving treatment strategies for invasive Streptococcus pyogenes in children in the postpandemic era.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2025Article
- Inclusion of Women, Children, the Elderly, and Individuals With Underlying Medical Conditions: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations in Clinical Research.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Neonatal Necrotizing Enterocolitis: An Update on Pathophysiology, Treatment, and Prevention.Paediatric drugs · 2024Review
- Antimicrobial resistance profile of methicillin-resistantFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Infection control and other stewardship strategies in late onset sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and localized infection in the neonatal intensive care unit.Seminars in perinatology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the absence of adequate safety or efficacy data, clindamycin is widely prescribed in the neonatal intensive care unit. We evaluated the association between clindamycin exposure and adverse events, as well as antibiotic effectiveness in infants.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of infants receiving clindamycin before postnatal day 121 who were discharged from a Pediatrix Medical Group neonatal intensive care unit (1997-2015). Using a previously developed pharmacokinetic model, we performed simulations to predict clindamycin exposure based on available dosing data. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between clindamycin exposure and safety outcomes during and after clindamycin therapy. We reported the proportion of infants with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia and clearance of MRSA bacteremia.
resultsA total of 4089 infants received clindamycin at a median (25th-75th percentile) dose of 15 mg/kg/d (12-16). Clearance increased with older gestational age. Infants with the highest total clindamycin exposure had marginally increased odds of necrotizing enterocolitis within 7 days (adjusted odds ratio = 1.95 [1.04-3.63]), but exposure was not associated with death, sepsis, seizures, intestinal perforation or intestinal strictures. Of 25 infants who had MRSA bacteremia, 19 (76%) cleared the infection by the end of the clindamycin course.
conclusionsHigher clindamycin exposure was not associated with increased odds of death or nonlaboratory adverse events. The use of pharmacokinetic models combined with available electronic health record data offers a valuable, cost-effective approach to analyzing the safety and effectiveness of drugs in infants when large-scale trials are not feasible.
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.