A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Vancomycin Loading Dose in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its frequent use, the optimal dosing regimen of intravenous vancomycin remains controversial. Achievement of therapeutic trough early in the course of illness may be beneficial. Our objective was to assess whether a loading dose of vancomycin would increase the proportion of children reaching target trough concentrations 8 hours after initiation of therapy. METHODS: We enrolled hospitalized children aged 2-18 years prescribed vancomycin at Boston Children's Hospital between February 2011 and January 2012. Participants were randomized to receive a loading dose (30 mg/kg) or a conventional initial dose (20 mg/kg). These were followed by a 20 mg/kg/dose every 8 hours in both groups. Serum vancomycin concentrations were measured before the second and third doses. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using individual and population pharmacokinetic models. RESULTS: Two of nineteen (11%) loading dose recipients had a trough 15-20 mg/L before the second dose, compared with 0 of 27 in the conventional dose group (P=0.17). However, the median area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration estimates (for a hypothetical minimum inhibitory concentration=1 mg/L) were above 400 in both groups. Red man syndrome incidence was higher in loading dose recipients (48% vs. 24%, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: A vancomycin loading dose did not result in earlier achievement of therapeutic trough concentrations in this study. However, the systemic exposure to vancomycin in children administered 60 mg/kg/day was adequate, despite lower than recommended measured trough levels. Therefore, the need for higher target trough concentrations should be questioned.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".