The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vancomycin Exposure in Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: How Much Is Enough?
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Contemporary vancomycin dosing schemes are designed to achieve an area under the curve (AUC) to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio of ≥400. However, scant clinical data exist to support this target and available data relied on pharmacokinetic formulas based on daily vancomycin dose and estimated renal function (demographic pharmacokinetic model) to estimate AUCs. METHODS: A cohort study of hospitalized, adult, nondialysis patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections treated with vancomycin was performed to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between vancomycin exposure and outcomes. Bayesian techniques were used to estimate vancomycin exposure profile for day 1 and 2 of therapy for each patient based on their dosing schedule and collected concentrations. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to identify day 1 and 2 exposure thresholds associated with an increased risk of failure. Failure was defined as 30-day mortality, bacteremia was ≥7 days, or recurrence. RESULTS: During the study period, 123 cases met criteria. Failure was uniformly less pronounced (approximately 20% less in absolute value) in patients who achieved the CART-derived day 1 and 2 thresholds for AUC/MIC by broth microdilution and AUC/MIC by Etest. In the multivariate analyses, all risk ratios were approximately 0.5 for all CART-derived AUC/MIC exposure thresholds, indicating that achievement of CART-derived AUC/MIC exposure thresholds was associated with a 2-fold decrease in failure. CONCLUSIONS: These findings establish the critical importance of daily AUC/MIC ratios during the first 2 days of therapy. As with all observational studies, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and validated in a multicenter randomized trial before adoption into practice.
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
Cites
Rybak, M., Lomaestro, B., Rotschafer, J. C., Moellering, R., Craig, W., Billeter, M., Dalovisio, J. R., & Levine, D. P. (2009) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp080434 · Cited by 1,795
Cited by
Neely, M. N., Kato, L., Youn, G., Kraler, L., Bayard, D., van Guilder, M., Schumitzky, A., Yamada, W., Jones, B., & Minejima, E. (2018) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.02042-17 · Cited by 359
Optimizing the Clinical Use of Vancomycin
Álvarez, R., López Cortés, L. E., Molina, J., Cisneros, J. M., & Pachón, J. (2016) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.03147-14 · Cited by 258
Turner, R. B., Kojiro, K., Shephard, E. A., Won, R., Chang, E., Chan, D., & Elbarbry, F. (2018) · Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · doi:10.1002/phar.2191 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Lodise, T. P., Drusano, G. L., Zasowski, E., Dihmess, A., Lazariu, V., Cosler, L., & McNutt, L.-A.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-05-27
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 666-675
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2109144391
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Vancomycin Exposure in Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: How Much Is Enough? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/ciu398
- The paper
- Lodise, T. P., Drusano, G. L., Zasowski, E., Dihmess, A., Lazariu, V., Cosler, L., & McNutt, L.-A. (2014). Vancomycin Exposure in Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: How Much Is Enough? Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu398
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.