↓ Skip to main content

Population pharmacokinetics of linezolid in critically ill patients on renal replacement therapy: comparison of equal doses in continuous venovenous haemofiltration and continuous venovenous…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC), November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Population pharmacokinetics of linezolid in critically ill patients on renal replacement therapy: comparison of equal doses in continuous venovenous haemofiltration and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration
Published in
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC), November 2015
DOI 10.1093/jac/dkv349
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Roger, L. Muller, S. C. Wallis, B. Louart, G. Saissi, J. Lipman, J. Y. Lefrant, J. A. Roberts

Abstract

Few data are available to guide linezolid dosing during renal replacement therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the population pharmacokinetics of linezolid during continuous venovenous haemofiltration (CVVHF, 30 mL/kg/h) and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF, 15 mL/kg/h + 15 mL/kg/h). Patients requiring linezolid 600 mg iv every 12 h and CVVHF or CVVHDF were eligible for this prospective study. Seven blood samples were collected over one dosing interval and analysed by a validated chromatographic method. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken using Pmetrics. Monte Carlo simulations evaluated achievement of a pharmacodynamics target of an AUC from 0-24 h to MIC (AUC0-24/MIC) of 80. Nine CVVHDF and eight CVVHF treatments were performed in 13 patients. Regimens of CVVHDF and CVVHF were similar. A two-compartment linear model best described the data. CVVHDF was associated with a 20.5% higher mean linezolid clearance than CVVHF, without statistical significance (P = 0.39). Increasing patient weight and decreasing SOFA score were associated with increasing linezolid clearance. The mean (SD) parameter estimates were: clearance (CL), 3.8 (2.2) L/h; volume of the central compartment, 26.5 (10.3) L; intercompartmental clearance constants from central to peripheral, 8.1 (12.1) L/h; and peripheral to central compartments, 3.6 (4.0) L/h. Achievement of pharmacodynamic targets was poor for an MIC of 2 mg/L with the studied dose. During CVVHF and CVVHDF, there is profound pharmacokinetic variability of linezolid. Suboptimal achievement of therapeutic targets occurs at the EUCAST breakpoint MIC of 2 mg/L using 600 mg iv every 12 h.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,950,448
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC)
#622
of 8,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,893
of 296,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC)
#10
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.