Safety and efficacy of daptomycin in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a prospective and multicenter cohort study (DAPTODOM trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daptomycin is an optimal choice for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) because of its safety, once-daily administration and its activity against Gram-positive bacteria. Although daptomycin is increasingly being used in OPAT, limited information about its safety in this scenario is available. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicentre pilot study to evaluate the safety of daptomycin in outpatients with proved or suspected Gram-positive infections (DAPTODOM). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and the secondary objective to evaluate the efficacy in OPAT. We also looked at the development of daptomycin resistance in those cases with microbiological failure. RESULTS: We included 54 patients from 12 Spanish hospitals, 67% male with a mean age of 67.1 years. Most patients (87%) had chronic underlying diseases. The main reason for inclusion was skin and soft-tissue infections in 52%, followed by bacteremia or endocarditis in 34%. Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 44% of the isolates (24% were methicillin-resistant), coagulase-negative staphylococci 15% and enterococci 7%. Two patients (4%) had to be readmitted because of complications; only one patient had an adverse effect related to daptomycin (increase in serum creatine kinase levels), which disappeared after discontinuation (2%). At the end of follow-up, 96% of patients had good outcome and only 4% of patients did not have a clinical or microbiological cure. The use of a 2-minute bolus in 18 cases was not associated with adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin was safe and efficacious in outpatients with Gram-positive bacterial infections and can be administered in 2-minute bolus infusion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".