Clinical Outcomes of Failing to Dose-Reduce Cephalosporin Antibiotics in Older Adults with CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current dosing recommendations for cephalosporin antibiotics are on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies and are frequently ignored in practice. This study was undertaken to investigate the clinical outcomes of failing to dose-reduce cephalosporin antibiotics in CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: and no prior history of dialysis were dispensed oral cephalexin, cefuroxime, or cefprozil between April of 2007 and March of 2016. Two thirds of the patients (6253 of 9347) received a higher than recommended daily dose of cephalexin (>1000 mg), cefuroxime (>500 mg), or cefprozil (>500 mg). The primary outcome was a hospital encounter (emergency room visit or hospital admission) with a condition listed as a possible side-effect of cephalosporins. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic treatment failure and all-cause mortality. All measures were assessed in the 30 days after cephalosporin initiation. RESULTS: Patients who received a higher than recommended dose of a cephalosporin antibiotic were similar in multiple indicators of baseline health to patients who received a reduced dose. Overall, 6% of patients presented to hospital with a possible cephalosporin side-effect, 13% failed antibiotic treatment, and 3% died. Compared with a reduced dose, receiving a higher dose of antibiotic was not associated with a different rate of side-effects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.20), treatment failure (1.01; 0.88 to 1.15), or death (0.99; 0.76 to 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: In this study we failed to demonstrate any association between the dose of cephalosporin antibiotic administered to elderly patients with CKD and the risk of side-effects leading to hospitalization, treatment failure, or mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".