MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169725634 · doi:10.1586/14787210.5.2.185

Faropenem: review of a new oral penem

2007· review· en· W2169725634 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen N. Schurek, Ryan Wiebe, James A. Karlowsky, Ethan Rubinstein, Daryl J. Hoban, George G. Zhanel

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCefpodoximeMedicineAmoxicillinChronic bronchitisPharmacologyAzithromycinPneumoniaPopulationClarithromycinAntibioticsAntibacterial agentMicrobiologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faropenem medoxomil is a new orally administered penem antibiotic. Its chiral tetrahydrofuran substituent at position C2 is responsible for its improved chemical stability and reduced CNS effects, compared with imipenem. Faropenem demonstrates broad-spectrum in vitro antimicrobial activity against many Gram-positive and -negative aerobes and anaerobes, and is resistant to hydrolysis by nearly all beta-lactamases, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamases and AmpC beta-lactamases. However, faropenem is not active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative (not vs placebo) clinical trials of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS), acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (uSSSIs) have demonstrated that faropenem medoxomil has equivalent efficacy and safety compared with cefuroxime, clarithromycin, azithromycin, amoxicillin, cefpodoxime and amoxicillin-clavulanate. The evidence supports faropenem medoxomil as a promising new oral beta-lactam with proven efficacy and safety for the treatment of a variety of community-acquired infections. However, the US FDA recently rejected faropenem for all four indications stating that the clinical trials in ABS and AECB should have been performed versus a placebo. In the CAP studies, the FDA stated that they could not be certain of the validity of the study population actually having the disease and for uSSSI, the FDA stated that only a single trial was not adequate evidence of efficacy for this indication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207