Telavancin for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia: Clinical Response and 28-Day Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
U.S. Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for future antibiotic clinical trials of bacterial nosocomial pneumonia recommends the use of diagnostic criteria according to American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines and the use of a primary endpoint of 28-day all-cause mortality. The effect of applying these guidelines on outcomes of phase III nosocomial pneumonia studies of telavancin was evaluated in a post hoc analysis. ATS/IDSA criteria were applied in a blind fashion to the original all-treated (AT) group. Clinical cure rates at final follow-up were determined in the refined AT and clinically evaluable (CE) groups (ATS/IDSA-AT and ATS/IDSA-CE, respectively). The exploratory endpoint of 28-day survival was evaluated for the ATS/IDSA-AT group. Noninferiority of telavancin versus vancomycin was demonstrated, with similar cure rates in the ATS/IDSA-AT (59% versus 59%) and ATS/IDSA-CE (83% versus 80%) groups. Cure rates favored telavancin in ATS/IDSA-CE patients where Staphylococcus aureus was the sole pathogen (86% versus 75%). Overall, 28-day survival rates were similar in the telavancin (76%) and vancomycin (77%) groups but lower in telavancin-treated patients with preexisting moderate-to-severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CLCR] of <50 ml/min). Telavancin should be administered to patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment only if treatment benefit outweighs the risk or if no suitable alternatives are available.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".