A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Fosfomycin in bacteraemic urinary tract infection due to multidrug-resistant : insights of DOOR analysis of the FOREST trial. | LitMetric

Purpose: A analysis of data from a previously published clinical trial was conducted using the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) methodology with the aim provide additional information on the use of fosfomycin for the treatment of bacteraemic urinary tract infection (BUTI) caused by multi-drug-resistant (MDR) .

Methods: Three DOOR systems with five, six and seven categories, respectively were developed. Safety and efficacy were prioritised in all rankings, but step down to oral therapy and exposure to antibiotics with lower ecological impact were also considered in DOOR-6 and DOOR-7. The probability that a patients assigned to fosfomycin was classified into a more desirable outcome category was calculated for the three DOOR definitions. Subgroups analyses and an ordinal logistic regression model were also performed.

Results: Data from 143 participants were analysed. The probability of having a more desirable outcome after treatment with fosfomycin versus the comparators was 0.44 (95% CI 0.36 - 0.52) for DOOR-5; 0.50 (95% IC 0.42 - 0.58) using DOOR-6 and 0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.69) with DOOR-7. In subgroups, the highest probability of having a better DOOR with fosfomycin was seen in the clinically evaluable population and among patients without chronic heart disease or renal insufficiency for the DOOR-7 definition.

Conclusions: DOOR analysis could be applied to the FOREST trial data; the results were somehow different for the different DOOR systems used. Overall, fosfomycin was favoured when oral step-down treatment and use of antibiotics with lower ecological impact were included.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2024.2435565DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bacteraemic urinary
8
urinary tract
8
tract infection
8
door analysis
8
forest trial
8
three door
8
door systems
8
antibiotics lower
8
lower ecological
8
ecological impact
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!