ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
Clinical validation of the two-point method for predicting vancomycin AUC based on peak and trough plasma concentrations.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. 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.
- Pharmacokinetics and Customized Dosing of Vancomycin in Adult Patients With Hematological Malignancies: Status, Challenges, and Opportunities.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Review
- PK/PD-Guided Strategies for Appropriate Antibiotic Use in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVancomycin area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) has been proposed as a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) target to dose vancomycin. It is time-consuming to estimate AUCs using traditional methods. A two-point trough-peak method is more straightforward for calculating the vancomycin AUC. However, the technique and the AUC/MIC target have not been validated in Chinese patients.
aimTo compare the clinical outcomes of vancomycin therapy in Chinese older adults (aged > 60 years) between the trough-only and the two-point peak-trough AUC TDM approaches.
methodThe patients were divided into study and control groups according to TDM approaches. A trough-based TDM was used in the control group (target trough level 15-20 mg/L). Stanford University has provided a method to predict vancomycin AUC using peak-valley concentration alone (two-point method). A two-point trough-peak TDM approach was employed in the study group (target AUC/MIC ≥ 400). The effect of vancomycin was evaluated in terms of clinical findings, laboratory values, and bacteriologic responses. The effects of treatment and kidney functions were compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 389 patients met the study inclusion criteria, and 189 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Of the 200 patients, 80 received the two-point TDM approach (the study group), and 120 were monitored using the trough-based approach (the control group). The average age was 69.8 ± 7.1 years. Staphylococcus aureus (34%) was the most common Gram-positive bacteria. No vancomycin-related nephrotoxicity was observed in either group. The percentages of patients with an excellent response to vancomycin therapy were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group, 90% (72/80) versus 73.3% (88/120), P = 0.0039.
conclusionThe two-point peak-trough method is practical for obtaining vancomycin AUC. The AUC/MIC ≥ 400 target demonstrates treatment effectiveness and safety in older Chinese patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36136207What 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.