Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34651282›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2022

Penetration of Antibacterial Agents into Pulmonary Epithelial Lining Fluid: An Update.

Emily N Drwiega, Keith A Rodvold

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Is less always more? Ceftazidime/avibactam alone or in combination to treat infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective observational multi-centre cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily N DrwiegaCollege of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, m/c 886, 833 South Wood Street, Room # 164, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Keith A RodvoldCollege of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, m/c 886, 833 South Wood Street, Room # 164, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. kar@uic.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7200-7346
Illinois College · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A comprehensive review of drug penetration into pulmonary epithelial lining fluid (ELF) was previously published in 2011. Since then, an extensive number of studies comparing plasma and ELF concentrations of antibacterial agents have been published and are summarized in this review. The majority of the studies included in this review determined ELF concentrations of antibacterial agents using bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage, and this review focuses on intrapulmonary penetration ratios determined with area under the concentration-time curve from healthy human adult studies or pharmacokinetic modeling of various antibacterial agents. If available, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters determined from preclinical murine infection models that evaluated ELF concentrations are also provided. There are also a limited number of recently published investigations of intrapulmonary penetration in critically ill patients with lower respiratory tract infections, where greater variability in ELF concentrations may exist. The significance of these changes may impact the intrapulmonary penetration in the setting of infection, and further studies relating ELF concentrations to clinical response are needed. Phase I drug development programs now include assessment of initial pharmacodynamic target values for pertinent organisms in animal models, followed by evaluation of antibacterial penetration into the human lung to assist in dosage selection for clinical trials in infected patients. The recent focus has been on β-lactam agents, including those in combination with β-lactamase inhibitors, particularly due to the rise of multidrug-resistant infections. This manifests as a large portion of the review focusing on cephalosporins and carbapenems, with or without β-lactamase inhibitors, in both healthy adult subjects and critically ill patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Further studies are warranted in critically ill patients with lower respiratory tract infections to evaluate the relationship between intrapulmonary penetration and clinical and microbiological outcomes. Our clinical research experience with these studies, along with this literature review, has allowed us to outline key steps in developing and evaluating dosage regimens to treat extracellular bacteria in lower respiratory tract infections.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsLungAnimalsBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidBronchoscopyCephalosporinsHumansMiceAnti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID34651282
PMCPMC8516621
OpenAlexW3207478525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.