Cited by 35Bacterial Infections and VaccinesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy

Three days of intravenous benzyl penicillin treatment of meningococcal disease in adults

Ellis-Pegler, R., Galler, L., Roberts, S., Thomas, M., Woodhouse, A.·2003·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

New Zealand has experienced an epidemic of predominantly serogroup B meningococcal disease during the past decade. In a prospective study, we treated adults (age, >15 years) with meningococcal disease with intravenous benzyl penicillin (12 MU [7.2 g] per day) for 3 days. Sixty-one adults with suspected meningococcal disease were consecutively admitted during the 33-month period; 3 patients were excluded. The 58 patients had a mean age (+/- standard deviation [SD]) of 27.9+/-14.5 years (median, 21 years; range, 15-70 years). Forty-four patients had confirmed and 14 patients had probable meningococcal disease. Fifty-seven patients received 12 MU (7.2 g) and 1 received 8 MU (4.8 g) of benzyl penicillin per day. Thirteen patients received additional antibiotics within the first 24 h because of diagnostic uncertainties. Patients received a mean (+/-SD) of 3.0+/-0.5 days of treatment. No patients relapsed. Five patients died. All but 1 death occurred during benzyl penicillin treatment, and the only posttreatment death was not due to meningococcal disease. Three days of intravenous benzyl penicillin is sufficient treatment for adults with meningococcal disease. The usual recommendations for duration of treatment are excessive.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/377203

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The duration of antibiotics in adults is based largely on expert opinion and is dependent on the organism isolated and clinical response.

    “Therefore, the duration of antibiotics in adults is based largely on expert opinion and is dependent on the organism isolated and clinical response (Table 3).”
  • A study on IMD showed 3 days of benzylpenicillin treatment was sufficient.

    “A study on IMD showed 3 days of benzylpenicillin treatment was sufficient.47”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellis-Pegler, R., Galler, L., Roberts, S., Thomas, M., & Woodhouse, A.
Affiliations
Auckland District Health Board (NZ)
Corresponding author
Ellis-Pegler, R.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2003-09-01
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
658-662
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2136440024
Cited by
35
References
41
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Keywords
meningococcal disease, penicillin G, intravenous antibiotics, treatment duration, serogroup B meningococcal disease, adults, antibiotic resistance
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Meningococcal Infections, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Middle Aged, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Neisseria meningitidis, New Zealand, Penicillin G

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review