↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of early antimicrobial therapy adaptation guided by the BetaLACTA® test: a case-control study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Evaluation of early antimicrobial therapy adaptation guided by the BetaLACTA® test: a case-control study
Published in
Critical Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1746-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Garnier, Sacha Rozencwajg, Tài Pham, Sophie Vimont, Clarisse Blayau, Mehdi Hafiani, Jean-Pierre Fulgencio, Francis Bonnet, Jean-Luc Mainardi, Guillaume Arlet, Muriel Fartoukh, Salah Gallah, Christophe Quesnel

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic tests detecting microbial resistance are needed for limiting the duration of inappropriateness of empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) in intensive care unit patients, besides reducing the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. We hypothesized that the betaLACTA® test (BLT) could lead to early increase in the adequacy of antimicrobial therapy. This was a case-control study. Sixty-one patients with BLT-guided adaptation of EAT were prospectively included, and then matched with 61 "controls" having similar infection characteristics (community or hospital-acquired, and source of infection), in whom EAT was conventionally adapted to antibiogram results. Endpoints were to compare the proportion of appropriate (primary endpoint) and optimal (secondary endpoint) antimicrobial therapies with each of the two strategies, once microbiological sample culture results were available. Characteristics of patients, infections and EAT at inclusion were similar between groups. Nine early escalations of EAT occurred in the BLT-guided adaptation group, reaching 98% appropriateness vs. 77% in the conventional adaptation group (p < 0.01). The BLT reduced the time until escalation of an inappropriate EAT from 50.5 (48-73) to 27 (24-28) hours (p < 0.01). Seventeen early de-escalations occurred in the BLT-guided adaptation group, compared to one in the conventional adaptation group, reducing patients' exposure to broad-spectrum beta-lactam such as carbapenems. In multivariate analysis, use of the BLT was strongly associated with early appropriate (OR = 18 (3.4-333.8), p = 0.006) and optimal (OR = 35.5 (9.6-231.9), p < 0.001) antimicrobial therapies. Safety parameters were similar between groups. Our study suggests that a BLT-guided adaptation strategy may allow early beta-lactam adaptation from the first 24 hours following the beginning of sepsis management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,241,141
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,585
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,159
of 328,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#80
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.