ArticleeLife2022
Procalcitonin for antimicrobial stewardship among cancer patients admitted with COVID-19.
Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in patients with cancer: a patient-level meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Chlorophyll triplet states in thylakoid membranes of Acaryochloris marina. Evidence for a triplet state sitting on the photosystem I primary donor populated by intersystem crossing.Photosynthesis research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) has been used to guide antibiotic therapy in bacterial infections. We aimed to determine the role of PCT in decreasing the duration of empiric antibiotic therapy among cancer patients admitted with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective study included cancer patients admitted to our institution for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and June 28, 2021, with a PCT test done within 72 hr after admission. Patients were divided into two groups: PCT <0.25 ng/ml and PCT ≥0.25 ng/ml. We assessed pertinent cultures, antibacterial use, and duration of empiric antibacterial therapy. Results: The study included 530 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 13-91]). All the patients had ≥1 culture test within 7 days following admission. Patients with PCT <0.25 ng/ml were less likely to have a positive culture than were those with PCT ≥0.25 ng/ml (6% [20/358] vs. 17% [30/172]; p<0.0001). PCT <0.25 ng/ml had a high negative predictive value for bacteremia and 30 day mortality. Patients with PCT <0.25 ng/ml were less likely to receive intravenous (IV) antibiotics for >72 hr than were patients with PCT ≥0.25 ng/ml (45% [162/358] vs. 69% [119/172]; p<0.0001). Among patients with PCT <0.25 ng/ml and negative cultures, 30 day mortality was similar between those who received IV antibiotics for ≥72 hr and those who received IV antibiotics for shorter durations (2% [2/111] vs. 3% [5/176], p=0.71). Conclusions: Among cancer patients with COVID-19, PCT level <0.25 ng/ml is associated with lower likelihood of bacterial co-infection and greater likelihood of a shorter antibiotic course. In patients with PCT level <0.25 ng/ml and negative cultures, an antibiotic course of >72 hr may not be necessary. PCT could be useful in enhancing antimicrobial stewardship in cancer patients with COVID-19. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute under award number P30CA016672, which supports MD Anderson Cancer Center's Clinical Trials Office.
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.