ArticleFundamental & clinical pharmacology2025
No Impact of Vancomycin MIC, AUC, or AUC/MIC in Enterococcus faecium Bacteremia.
Article in Fundamental & clinical pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Optimizing vancomycin therapy: the critical role of dosing frequency, AUC monitoring and gender: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- No Impact of Vancomycin MIC, AUC, or AUC/MIC in Enterococcus faecium Bacteremia.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no clear pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target during vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium bacteremia (EFB).
objectivesTo investigate whether in-hospital mortality was associated with susceptibility to amoxicillin or vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the strain and with area under the curve over 24 h (AUC) and AUC/MIC during EFBs.
methodsAll E. faecium strains isolated from blood cultures performed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, were included, and clinicobiological data were retrospectively extracted from corresponding medical records. The Vancomycin MICs were estimated using the VITEK 2 automated system. AUC was calculated among patients who received vancomycin during their first episode of EFB with available data.
resultsTwo hundred fifteen E. faecium strains not susceptible to amoxicillin had been isolated in 207 patients (125 male, median age 69 [1-98] years) with biliary and digestive tract diseases, hematologic malignancies, or COVID-19 in 124 (59.9%), 35 (16.9%), and 17 (8.2%) cases, respectively. The median vancomycin MIC was 0.5 [0.5-2] mg/L, and 67 patients (32.3%) died during the hospitalization. In-hospital mortality was not associated with susceptibility to amoxicillin (p = 0.14) or vancomycin MIC (p = 0.07) of the strain. Neither mean AUC (592.7 versus 521.7mgh/L) nor mean AUC/MIC ratio (1066.5 versus 1000.5) was associated with in-hospital mortality (p = 0.17 and p = 0.54, respectively).
conclusionsBesides amoxicillin susceptibility and vancomycin MIC of the strain, there was no significant association between in-hospital mortality and vancomycin AUC or AUC/MIC. Retrospective observational studies focusing on in-hospital mortality among patients with severe comorbidities may not be adequate for the determination of the PK/PD target of vancomycin.
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.