Monte Carlo simulation analysis of ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, daptomycin, tigecycline, linezolid and vancomycin pharmacodynamics against intensive care unit‐isolated methicillin‐resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the potential of ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, daptomycin, tigecycline, linezolid and vancomycin to achieve their requisite pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected from intensive care unit (ICU) settings. Monte Carlo simulations were carried out to simulate the PK/PD indices of the investigated antimicrobials. The probability of target attainment (PTA) was estimated at minimum inhibitory concentration values ranging from 0.03 to 32 μg/mL to define the PK/PD susceptibility breakpoints. The cumulative fraction of response (CFR) was computed using minimum inhibitory concentration data from the Canadian National Intensive Care Unit study. Analysis of the simulation results suggested the breakpoints of 4 μg/mL for ceftobiprole (500 mg/2 h t.i.d.), 0.25 μg/mL for dalbavancin (1000 mg), 0.12 μg/mL for daptomycin (4 mg/kg q.d. and 6 mg/kg q.d.) and tigecycline (50 mg b.i.d.), and 2 μg/mL for linezolid (600 mg b.i.d.) and vancomycin (1 g b.i.d. and 1.5 g b.i.d.). The estimated CFR were 100, 100, 70.6, 88.8, 96.5, 82.4, 89.4, and 98.3% for ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, daptomycin (4 mg/kg/day), daptomycin (6 mg/kg/day), linezolid, tigecycline, vancomycin (1 g b.i.d.) and vancomycin (1.5 g b.i.d.), respectively. In conclusion, ceftobiprole and dalbavancin have the highest probability of achieving their requisite PK/PD targets against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from ICU settings. The susceptibility predictions suggested a reduction of the vancomycin breakpoint to 1 μg/mL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".