Vancomycin use, dosing and serum trough concentrations in the pediatric population: a retrospective institutional review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is used primarily for Gram-positive infections. Recommended dosage regimens and targeted therapeutic levels vary between institutions. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe therapeutic levels according to initial vancomycin doses and patient's age. A secondary objective was to evaluate appropriateness of vancomycin use in our hospital. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Patients included in this study were classified by age (neonates, infants, children and adolescents) and categorized into those who received vancomycin ≤5 and >5 days. Initial vancomycin dosing regimens and corresponding initial trough levels obtained were evaluated. Initial trough levels drawn in relation to the third, fourth, or fifth doses corresponding to the first course of therapy were analyzed. Acceptable trough levels ranged from 5-20 mg/L. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-sixty-four patients who received intravenous vancomycin in 2013 were included. Of the 229 courses of vancomycin, 190 (83%) were used 5 days or less (mean 4.9 days). Sixteen infants (88.9%) and 21 adolescents (100%), who received vancomycin empiric dosing of 60 mg/kg/day, had initial trough levels >5mg/L. However, in the children's group 20 (37.7%) did not reach levels >5 mg/L. None of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were >1mg/L for the four patients who had infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, initial empiric vancomycin dosing of 60 mg/kg/day resulted in levels ≥5mg/L in most infants and adolescents. It remains unclear why some children aged 1-12 years did not achieve these levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".