Cited by 60Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyPharmaceutical studies and practicesPneumonia and Respiratory Infections

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Penetration of Vancomycin into Epithelial Lining Fluid in Healthy Volunteers

Open access

Abstract

Although vancomycin is often regarded as an agent that concentrates poorly in the lower respiratory tract, as determined from concentrations in epithelial lining fluid (ELF), few data are available. This study sought to determine the profile of vancomycin exposure in the ELF relative to plasma. Population modeling and Monte Carlo simulation were employed to estimate the penetration of vancomycin into ELF. Plasma and ELF pharmacokinetic (PK) data were obtained from 10 healthy volunteers. Concentration-time profiles in plasma and ELF were simultaneously modeled using a three-compartment model with zero-order infusion and first-order elimination and transfer using the big nonparametric adaptive grid (BigNPAG) program. Monte Carlo simulation with 9,999 subjects was performed to calculate the ELF/plasma penetration ratios by estimating the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) in ELF (AUC ELF ) and plasma (AUC plasma ) after a single simulated 1,000-mg dose. The mean (standard deviation) AUC ELF /AUC plasma penetration ratio was 0.675 (0.677), and the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile penetration ratios were 0.265, 0.474, and 0.842, respectively. Our results indicate that vancomycin penetrates ELF at approximately 50% of plasma levels. To properly judge the adequacy of current doses and schedules employed in practice, future studies are needed to delineate the PK/PD (pharmacodynamics) target for vancomycin in ELF. If the PK/PD target in ELF is found to be consistent with the currently proposed target of an AUC/MIC of ≥400, suboptimal probability of target attainment would be expected when vancomycin is utilized for pneumonias due to MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ) with MICs in excess of 1 mg/liter.

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 · 10.1128/aac.00712-11

Cites

21 of 21 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

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?

  • Under the assumption that cell membrane composition is similar in different species, the specific PStc value (9.15 × 10^-5 mL/s/mL cell volume) fitted against rat data was used with human physiology to accurately predict pharmacokinetics in humans.

    “Under the assumption that cell membrane composition is similar in different species, the specific PStc value (9.15 × ­ 10 -5 mL/s/mL cell volume) fitted against rat data was used with human physiology to accurately predict pharmacokinetics in humans [85] (Fig. 11).”

    From Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modelling for First-In-Human Predictions: An Updated Model Building Strategy Illustrated with Challenging Industry Case Studies (2019) · cites this paper as [85]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lodise, T. P., Drusano, G. L., Butterfield, J. M., Scoville, J., Gotfried, M., & Rodvold, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US)
  • Ordway Research Institute, Albany, New York
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Lodise, Thomas P.
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2011-12
Volume
55
Issue
12
Pages
5507-5511
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2109063989
Cited by
60
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Keywords
vancomycin, epithelial lining fluid, drug penetration, lower respiratory tract, plasma pharmacokinetics, penetration ratio, Monte Carlo simulation, population pharmacokinetic model, MRSA pneumonia, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets, healthy volunteers
MeSH terms
Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid, Bronchoscopy, Epithelium, Female, Humans, Male, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Models, Biological, Monte Carlo Method, Vancomycin, Area Under Curve, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Young Adult

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