Retrospective multicentre matched cohort study comparing safety and efficacy outcomes of intermittent-infusion versus continuous-infusion vancomycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with good renal function receiving intermittent-infusion vancomycin (IIV) may require total daily doses ≥4 g to achieve trough concentrations of 15-20 mg/L, increasing the risk of vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity. Continuous-infusion vancomycin (CIV) may be associated with a lower risk of vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity compared with IIV, but studies comparing safety of both dosing strategies are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of nephrotoxicity with CIV versus IIV when target concentration ranges were the same with both dosing modalities. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre matched cohort study of admitted patients between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016 was completed. Adult patients who received ≥48 h of vancomycin with at least one steady-state vancomycin concentration were eligible. The primary outcome was to compare the rates of nephrotoxic risk and renal injury, defined by the RIFLE criteria, between CIV and IIV. RESULTS: Of 2136 patients who received vancomycin during the study period, 146 CIV patients were eligible and matched to 146 IIV patients. After adjustment of potential confounders, CIV was found to have a lower odds of developing nephrotoxic risk (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.98, P = 0.025) and renal injury (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.59, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: CIV is associated with a lower odds of nephrotoxicity compared with IIV when targeting the same concentration range and should be an alternative dosing strategy for patients who will receive prolonged therapy or require >4 g/day to achieve therapeutic 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".