ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2023
Swedish multicentre study of target attainments with β-lactams in the ICU: which MIC parameter should be used?
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- β-Lactam concentrations monitored in the early phase of community-acquired sepsis in the intensive care unit.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Observational
- Optimal antibiotic use in the intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- [Empirical antibiotic therapy in life-threatening infections-current concepts and controversies].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Article
- First dose target attainment with extended infusion regimens of piperacillin and meropenem.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Higher target attainment for B-lactam antibiotics in patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infections when four times actual minimum inhibitory concentrations and epidemiological cutoff values are applied compared to clinical breakpoints.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Standard versus double dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis: The BULLSEYE study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Short, extended and continuous infusion of β-lactams: predicted impact on target attainment and risk for toxicity in an ICU patient cohort.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Understanding antimicrobial pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients to optimize antimicrobial therapy: A narrative review.Journal of intensive medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.