Observational studyScientific reports2021
Elimination of fosfomycin during dialysis with the Genius system in septic patients.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Population pharmacokinetics of intravenous fosfomycin: dose optimization for critically ill patients with and without kidney replacement therapy.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Observational
- Population pharmacokinetic modeling of multiple-dose intravenous fosfomycin in critically ill patients during continuous venovenous hemodialysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess fosfomycin (FOS) elimination in patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury (AKI) undergoing slow-extended daily dialysis (SLEDD) with the Genius system in a prospective observational study. After ethics committee approval ten patients with sepsis and AKI stage 3 underwent daily SLEDD sessions of eight hours. FOS was applied i.v. at doses of 3 × 5 g per day. FOS serum levels were measured pre- and post hemofilter before, during, and after SLEDD sessions, and instantaneous clearance was calculated. In five of the patients, we analyzed FOS levels after the first dose, in the other five patients serum levels were measured during ongoing therapy. FOS was eliminated rapidly via the hemofilter. FOS clearance decreased from 152 ± 10 mL/min (start of SLEED session) to 43 ± 38 mL/min (end of SLEDD session). In 3/5 first-dose patients after 4-6 h of SLEDD the FOS serum level fell below the EUCAST breakpoint of 32 mg/L for Enterobacterales and Staphylococcus species. In all patients with ongoing fosfomycin therapy serum levels were high and above the breakpoint at all times. FOS toxicity or adverse effects were not observed. FOS serum concentrations exhibit wide variability in critically ill patients with sepsis and AKI. FOS is eliminated rapidly during SLEDD. A loading dose of 5 g is not sufficient to achieve serum levels above the EUCAST breakpoint for common bacteria in all patients, considering that T > MIC > 70% of the dosing interval indicates sufficient plasma levels. We thus recommend a loading dose of 8 g followed by a maintenance dose of 5 g after a SLEDD session in anuric patients. We strongly recommend therapeutic drug monitoring of FOS levels in critically ill patients with AKI and dialysis therapy.
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.