Evidence Hub

Dynamic distribution of systemically administered antibiotics in orthopeadically relevant target tissues and settings

Nielsen MBD, Jørgensen AR, Stilling M, Mikkelsen MKD, Jørgensen NP, Bue M

APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica, 2024

4 citations

Abstract

This review aimed to summarize the current literature on antibiotic distribution in orthopedically relevant tissues and settings where dynamic sampling methods have been used. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched. English-published studies between 2004 and 2024 involving systemic antibiotic administration in orthopedically relevant tissues and settings based on dynamic measurements were included. In total, 5385 titles were identified. After title and abstract screening, 97 eligible studies (43 different antibiotic drugs) were included. The studies covered both preclinical (42%) and clinical studies including healthy and infected tissues (21%) and prophylactic and steady-state situations (35%). Microdialysis emerged as the predominant sampling method in 98% of the studies. Most of the presented antibiotics (80%) were only assessed once or twice. Among the most extensively studied antibiotics were cefuroxime (18 studies), linezolid (9 studies) and vancomycin (9 studies). This review presents valuable insights into the microenvironmental distribution of antibiotics in orthopedically relevant target tissues and settings and seeks to provide a basis for improving dosing recommendations and treatment outcomes. However, it is important to acknowledge that our findings are limited to the specific drug, dosing regimens, administration method and target tissue, and are crucially linked to the selected PK/PD target.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free