The DOI matches its Crossref record.
High-Dose, Extended-Interval Colistin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: Is This the Right Dosing Strategy? A Preliminary Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Gram-negative bacteria susceptible only to colistin (COS) are emerging causes of severe nosocomial infections, reviving interest in the use of colistin. However, consensus on the most effective way to administer colistin has not yet been reached. METHODS: All patients who had sepsis due to COS gram-negative bacteria or minimally susceptible gram-negative bacteria and received intravenous colistimethate sodium (CMS) were prospectively enrolled. The CMS dosing schedule was based on a loading dose of 9 MU and a 9-MU twice-daily fractioned maintenance dose, titrated on renal function. For each CMS course, clinical cure, bacteriological clearance, daily serum creatinine clearance, and estimated creatinine clearance were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-eight infectious episodes due to Acinetobacter baumannii (46.4%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (46.4%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7.2%) were analyzed. The main types of infection were bloodstream infection (64.3%) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (35.7%). Clinical cure was observed in 23 cases (82.1%). Acute kidney injury developed during 5 treatment courses (17.8%), did not require renal replacement therapy, and subsided within 10 days from CMS discontinuation. No correlation was found between variation in serum creatinine level (from baseline to peak) and daily and cumulative doses of CMS, and between variation in serum creatinine level (from baseline to peak) and duration of CMS treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that in severe infections due to COS gram-negative bacteria, the high-dose, extended-interval CMS regimen has a high efficacy, without significant renal toxicity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Poirel, L., Jayol, A., & Nordmann, P. (2017) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00064-16 · Cited by 1,447
Horcajada, J. P., Montero, M., Oliver, A., Sorlí, L., Luque, S., Gómez-Zorrilla, S., Benito, N., & Grau, S. (2019) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00031-19 · Cited by 961
The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection
Mazuski, J. E., Tessier, J. M., May, A. K., Sawyer, R. G., Nadler, E. P., Rosengart, M. R., Chang, P. K., O'Neill, P. J., Mollen, K. P., Huston, J. M., et al. (2017) · Surgical Infections · doi:10.1089/sur.2016.261 · Cited by 573
Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative bacilli
Ruppé, É., Woerther, P.-L., & Barbier, F. (2015) · Annals of Intensive Care · doi:10.1186/s13613-015-0061-0 · Cited by 490
Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Antibacterial Drugs
Nielsen, E. I., & Friberg, L. E. (2013) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1124/pr.111.005769 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Dalfino, L., Puntillo, F., Mosca, A., Monno, R., Spada, M. L., Coppolecchia, S., Miragliotta, G., Bruno, F., & Brienza, N.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-03-15
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1720-1726
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2134744238
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High-Dose, Extended-Interval Colistin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: Is This the Right Dosing Strategy? A Preliminary Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/cis286
- The paper
- Dalfino, L., Puntillo, F., Mosca, A., Monno, R., Spada, M. L., Coppolecchia, S., Miragliotta, G., Bruno, F., & Brienza, N. (2012). High-Dose, Extended-Interval Colistin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: Is This the Right Dosing Strategy? A Preliminary Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis286
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.