MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391848056 · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2024.02.013

Acyclovir dosing in herpes encephalitis: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4391848056 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Aboelezz, Sherif Hanafy Mahmoud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Pharmacists Association · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingEncephalitisVirologyMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePharmacologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Herpes encephalitis, a rare yet potentially fatal viral infection, is treated exclusively with acyclovir, the sole antiviral medication used for this condition. Acyclovir recommended dose is 10 mg/kg/dose intravenous every 8 hours; however, it is unclear what body weight should be utilized in obese patients. Using the ideal body weight may result in subtherapeutic ineffective concentrations, while utilizing the actual body weight might result in acyclovir induced adverse effects, either nephrotoxicity or neurotoxicity or both. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to explore existing evidence regarding acyclovir dosing for obese patients afflicted with herpes encephalitis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched on 26 May 2023, with no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers utilized the Covidence software to carry out the screening and selection of the articles. A total of 22 articles were included in the current review. RESULTS: The prevalence of acyclovir-associated nephrotoxicity ranged from 13% to 21%, while the prevalence of neurotoxicity was not clearly defined. However, there is lack of evidence regarding what may arise from subtherapeutic concentrations. An approach has been suggested to help clinicians to give the most appropriate acyclovir dose to herpes encephalitis patients. Patients with normal kidney function could receive the normal doses based on actual weight if normal weight and based on adjusted body weight if obese. On the other hand, if the patients are experiencing augmented renal clearance, they could receive up to the maximum recommended doses. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is a lack of consistency on which body weight to use to calculate acyclovir dose in obese patients. So it is recommended that further studies compare the concentration of intravenous acyclovir between obese and nonobese patients and relating the resultant concentration with patient outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Pharmacists AssociationSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207