Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

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 access
Lodise, Thomas P., Drusano, George L., Zasowski, Evan, Dihmess, Amanda, Lazariu, Victoria, Cosler, Leon, McNutt, Louise-Anne·2014·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/ciu398

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Lodise, T. P., Drusano, G. L., Zasowski, E., Dihmess, A., Lazariu, V., Cosler, L., & McNutt, L.-A.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
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.