ArticlePharmaceutical research2024
Identification of Patients Who Require Two-Point Blood Sampling for the Peak and Trough Values Rather Than One-Point Blood Sampling for the Trough Value for the Evaluation of AUC of Vancomycin Using Bayesian Estimation.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a population pharmacokinetic model of vancomycin for patients of advanced age.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIt is recommended to adjust the dose of vancomycin (VCM) with a target area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 400-600 μg·h/mL. Factors that affect the deviation between AUCs are estimated from the trough value alone and the trough and peak values using practical AUC-guided therapeutic drug monitoring (PAT) for vancomycin. In this study, factors that affect AUC were evaluated.
methodsAUCs were estimated from a single trough value and trough and peak values, and the patients were classified into those who showed a 10% or greater deviation (deviation group) and those in whom the deviation was less than 10% (no-deviation group). Risk factors related to ≥ 10% deviation of AUC were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis.
resultsAs a result of univariate and multivariate analysis of 30 patients in the deviation group and 344 patients in the no-deviation group, a creatinine clearance (CLcr) of ≥ 110 mL/min (odds ratio (OR) = 3.697, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.616-8.457, p = 0.002), heart failure with a brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of ≥ 300 pg/mL (OR = 4.854, 95%CI = 1.199-19.656, p = 0.027), and the concomitant use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) (OR = 2.544, 95%CI = 1.074-6.024, p = 0.034) were identified as risk factors of ≥ 10% deviation of AUC.
conclusionsEstimation of AUC by two-point blood sampling for the trough and peak values rather than one-point blood sampling for the trough value is suggested to improve the prediction accuracy in patients with enhanced renal function, severe heart failure, and patients using ACE-I/ARB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39433691What 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.