Vancomycin-Induced Neutropenia: Is it Dose- or Duration-Related?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the literature to determine whether vancomycin-induced neutropenia is dose- or duration-related and provide clinicians with feasible treatment alternatives. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed (1949-November 2010), MEDLINE (1950-November 2010), EMBASE (1980-November 2010), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-November 2010) was performed using the terms vancomycin, neutropenia, and leukopenia. Citations from publications were reviewed for additional references. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies and case reports were included if they reported neutropenia with vancomycin administration and excluded if they did not describe vancomycin dosages and/or concentrations, or if neutropenia resolved while the patient was still receiving vancomycin. Cases with significant confounders and those in which authors provided minimal information about patients were also excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven retrospective chart reviews (ie, case series) and 33 case reports were identified. Of these, 3 retrospective reviews and 26 case reports met inclusion criteria. To our knowledge, no prospective studies have assessed this clinical complication. Data suggest that vancomycin-induced neutropenia may not be completely related to daily dosages, total cumulative dosage, or supratherapeutic vancomycin concentrations. Furthermore, evidence suggests that neutropenia is more likely associated with therapy longer than 7 days, with the majority of episodes occurring beyond 20 days of therapy. Given these findings, a practical approach is to monitor white blood cell (WBC) count with a differential (including absolute neutrophil count) once a week in patients who are receiving vancomycin for more than 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin-induced neutropenia is most likely associated with prolonged vancomycin exposure. Patients receiving vancomycin for longer than 7 days should have WBC count, differential, monitored weekly. Vancomycin should be discontinued if there is a high clinical suspicion of it causing neutropenia, and an alternative agent should be initiated. Prospective case-controlled studies are needed to better characterize this adverse event.
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 | 0.013 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".