Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37897332›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2023

Swedish multicentre study of target attainments with β-lactams in the ICU: which MIC parameter should be used?

Anna-Karin Smekal, Mia Furebring, Miklos Lipcsey, Christian G Giske

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Challenges and opportunities in the management of severe pneumonia. Key concepts from the Seventh Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2025.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. Optimal antibiotic use in the intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna-Karin SmekalDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala,Sweden.
Mia FurebringDepartment of Medical Sciences, Section of Infectious Diseases, Uppsala University, Uppsala,Sweden.
Miklos LipcseyDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala,Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1976-4129
Christian G GiskeClinical Microbiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
Uppsala University · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

Olinder-Nielsen FoundationRegional Research Council Mid Sweden RFR-560491Uppsala UniversityUppsala University Hospital research fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTherapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been suggested to optimize antimicrobial target attainment, typically using 100%T>MIC, in β-lactam treatment in the ICU. The MIC parameter used in this equation is mostly the worst case scenario MIC (MICWCS)-the highest MIC the empirical treatment should cover. However, the impact of the MIC parameter used in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic calculations has been poorly investigated.

objectivesTo assess the influence of target attainment rates for two different MIC parameters using actual MICs of the causative pathogens as the primary reference.

methodsIn a Swedish multicentre study of target attainment for 138 ICU patients treated with β-lactams, the causative pathogen was isolated and subjected to reference MIC testing. Whenever the strain belonged to the WT distribution, we assigned it to the category MICECOFF (epidemiological cut-off value). In the calculations we compared the MICECOFF and the MICWCS.

resultsThe proportion of patients with target attainment failure for all antibiotics using 100%T>MIC was 45% (95% CI, 37%-53%) for MICWCS and 23% (95% CI, 16%-31%) for MICECOFF. When the target 50%T>4×MIC was used, corresponding attainment failures were 57% (95% CI, 49%-66%) and 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) for MICWCS and MICECOFF, respectively.

conclusionsMICWCS can overestimate target attainment failure. The use of MICWCS could be one reason for the difficulties in establishing a relationship between target failure and mortality in other studies. Based on findings herein, the MICECOFF, which is based on the MIC of the causative pathogen, should be considered a more suitable alternative. When no pathogen is detected, the MICECOFF of likely pathogens according to infection type should be used.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSwedenAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-Lactams

Identifiers

PMID37897332
PMCPMC10689903
OpenAlexW4388000894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.