Skip to main content
Download PDF

The monitoring of vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analyses of area under the concentration-time curve-guided dosing and trough-guided dosing

BMC Infectious Diseases volume 21, Article number: 153 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between vancomycin (VCM) monitoring strategies and VCM effectiveness and safety.

Methods

We conducted our analysis using the MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases searched on August 9, 2020. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia with VCM trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL had significantly lower treatment failure rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47–0.85). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) increased with increased trough concentrations and was significantly higher for trough concentrations ≥20 μg/mL compared to those at 15–20 μg/mL (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.78–3.20). Analysis of the target area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ratios (AUC/MIC) showed significantly lower treatment failure rates for high AUC/MIC (cut-off 400 ± 15%) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18–0.45). The safety analysis revealed that high AUC value (cut-off 600 ± 15%) significantly increased the risk of AKI (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.13–3.89). Our meta-analysis of differences in monitoring strategies included four studies. The incidence of AKI tended to be lower in AUC-guided monitoring than in trough-guided monitoring (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.28–1.01); however, it was not significant in the analysis of mortality.

Conclusions

We identified VCM trough concentrations and AUC values that correlated with effectiveness and safety. Furthermore, compared to trough-guided monitoring, AUC-guided monitoring showed potential for decreasing nephrotoxicity.

Peer Review reports

Background

Vancomycin (VCM) is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that acts against Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and is used for the treatment of several infections [1, 2]. However, its use requires therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to ensure its therapeutic effectiveness and avoid nephrotoxicity.

A recent meta-analysis revealed that compared to low area under the curve/minimum inhibitor concentration ratios (AUC/MIC), high AUC/MIC ratios were associated with significantly lower mortality and treatment failure rates [3]. The practice guidelines for TDM of VCM recommended an AUC/MIC ratio of ≥400 to predict the clinical efficacy of VCM against MRSA (MIC ≤1 μg/mL) [4, 5]. However, Dalton et al. reported that the target AUC/MIC could not be calculated that related to the effectiveness and safety of VCM [6]. Therefore, the target AUC/MIC value, which is an indicator of effectiveness in MRSA infection therapy, is still controversial. On the other hand, in real-world clinical situations, trough concentrations are used as alternate indicators of AUC values, and in practice, target trough concentrations between 10 and 20 μg/mL are recommended to achieve an AUC/MIC ratio of ≥400 at MIC values of 0.5 and 1 μg/mL. Furthermore, in cases of serious infections such as bacteraemia, infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and hospital-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia caused by MRSA, trough concentrations of 15–20 μg/mL are recommended to further improve patient outcomes [5, 7]. Thus, Tongsai et al. performed a meta-analysis to clarify the relationship between trough concentrations and effectiveness. They reported that no significant differences in mortality and treatment success rate between trough concentrations of ≥15 and < 15 μg/mL [8]. However, because AUC values increase as trough concentrations rise, it is unclear why or how this result was reached. Thus, a reanalysis of the relationship between trough concentrations and effectiveness is needed.

One of the adverse events associated with VCM use is acute kidney injury (AKI). Lodise et al. reported incidence rates for AKI of 21% for trough VCM concentrations of 10–15 μg/mL, 20% for 15–20 μg/mL, and 33% for ≥20 μg/mL [9]. Bellos et al. evaluated the risk of AKI at cutoff values of 10, 15, 20, and 25 μg/mL, and reported that the risk of AKI increased as the trough level increased [10]. These results indicate a clear relationship between AKI incidence and increased trough concentrations [9, 10]. A meta-analysis of AKI incidence indicated significantly higher incidence rates for trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL compared to those for concentrations < 15 μg/mL [8, 10, 11]. In the clinical setting, dosage regimens based on the trough level is still used because it is a conventional method. As we mentioned above, the cutoff value for the effectiveness and safety of VCM is still under discussion, and it is important to clarify the optimal target value.

Recent evidence suggests that VCM-induced AKI correlates better with AUC values than with trough concentrations. For example, rat studies indicated that urine kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) concentration was a useful indicator for the early detection of VCM-induced AKI [12] and that increases in urine KIM-1 concentration exhibited higher correlation coefficients with AUC values than with trough concentrations [13]. In their meta-analysis of clinical research, Aljefri et al. showed a significantly higher AKI incidence with a high AUC compared to that with a low AUC. They also reported that an AUC ≥650 μg × hr./mL is a risk indicator for AKI [14]. Furthermore, their meta-analysis judging the comparative usefulness of AUC-guided and trough-guided monitoring strategies for avoiding AKI showed that AUC-guided monitoring significantly reduced the AKI incidence compared to trough-guided monitoring [14]. However, this meta-analysis included only two papers; therefore, one would be hard-pressed to consider such a finding to be thoroughly demonstrated. Subsequent trials comparing AKI incidence rates associated with different VCM monitoring strategies have been reported [15, 16].

The present study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the relationship between VCM trough concentrations or AUC values and its effectiveness and safety. Further, we studied whether trough-guided or AUC value-guided VCM monitoring strategies were more appropriate.

Methods

Search strategies

Search strategy for the evaluation of VCM target trough concentrations

We performed a literature search in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases (August 92,020). Two of the four reviewers (MT, HM, NK, and YM) independently searched for literature using the following search terms: “vancomycin”, “trough”, and “monitoring”. The detailed search strategies are shown in Supplementary Table S1. Screening was conducted and duplicated articles were excluded.

Search strategy for the evaluation of VCM target AUC values

We performed a literature search in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases (August 92,020). Two of the four reviewers (MT, HM, NK, and YM) independently searched for literature using the following search terms: “vancomycin”, “AUC”, or “area under the curve”. The detailed search strategies are shown in Supplementary Table S2. Screening was conducted and duplicated articles were excluded.

Search strategy for the evaluation of different monitoring strategies

We performed a literature search in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases (August 92,020). Two of the four reviewers (MT, HM, NK, and YM) independently searched for literature using the following search terms: “vancomycin” or “monitoring”. The detailed search strategies are shown in Supplementary Table S3. Screening was conducted and duplicated articles were excluded.

Study selection

Study selection for the evaluation of VCM target trough concentrations

A study was considered eligible for the evaluation of the VCM target trough concentrations it met the following criteria: trough levels were determined after the intravenous administration of VCM; more than two ranges of trough level were compared; data on the detailed outcomes regarding the effectiveness (clinical cure, treatment success or failure) or nephrotoxicity were available; and all subjects had MRSA bacteraemia only for analysis of the effectiveness. Studies that met the following exclusion criteria were excluded: questionnaire study, letter, case report, and review articles; non-adult patients or non-human subjects; and detailed results not available in English.

Study selection for the evaluation of the VCM target AUC values

A study was considered eligible for the evaluation of the VCM target trough concentrations it met the following criteria: AUC values were determined after the intravenous administration of VCM; more than two ranges of AUC values were compared; and available data on the detailed outcomes of the effectiveness (clinical response, treatment success or failure, mortality, or bacterial eradication) or nephrotoxicity. All subjects had MRSA bacteraemia only for the analysis of the effectiveness. Studies that met the following exclusion criteria were excluded: questionnaire study, letter, case report, and review articles; non-adult patients or non-human subjects; MICs determined by Etest, and detailed results not available in English.

Study selection for the evaluation of different monitoring strategies

A study was considered eligible for the evaluation of the VCM target trough concentrations it met the following criteria: a comparative study comparing AUC-guided monitoring and trough-guided monitoring of VCM; VCM was intravenously administrated; and availability of detailed outcomes regarding the effectiveness (clinical cure, treatment success or failure) or nephrotoxicity. Furthermore, studies that met the following exclusion criteria were excluded: questionnaire study, letter, case report, and review articles; non-adult patients or non-human subjects; the VCM dose was not adjusted based on AUC or trough; and detailed results not available in English.

Two of the four reviewers (MT, HM, NK, and YM) independently conducted the screening. When opinions differed, the screening results were determined based on discussions involving a third person (ST).

Data extraction

Two of the four reviewers (MT, HM, NK, and YM) independently extracted data from the studies. When opinions differed, they were extracted through discussion with two additional people (ST and SO). The design, country, duration, age of patients, number of patients, target values (AUC and trough), causative bacteria, lesion, and rate of MRSA were extracted. The AUC definition method was also extracted in the evaluation of the AUC values.

Outcomes analysis

Outcome analysis for the evaluation of VCM target trough concentrations

In the analysis of the relationship between trough levels of VCM and its effectiveness and nephrotoxicity, the primary outcomes (effectiveness and nephrotoxicity) were defined according to each study’s definition. Definitions of the nephrotoxicity criteria in each study are indicated in Table S4.

Outcome analysis for the evaluation of the VCM target AUCvalues

Unlike trough levels, the included studies showed considerable variation in the AUC/MIC ratio and AUC value cutoff in the comparison of clinical failure and adverse effects. Considering the differences in methodological and technical measurements, rounding within 15% of the AUC was considered appropriate for the meta-analysis. Therefore, the cut-off value of AUC/MIC ratios of 340–460 was defined as 400, and AUC values of 510–690 were defined as 600. The analysis of the relationship between the AUC values of VCM and its effectiveness and nephrotoxicity, the primary outcomes (effectiveness and nephrotoxicity) were defined as follows: effectiveness was defined as a clinical response, treatment failure, mortality, or bacterial eradication, while nephrotoxicity was defined as according to the 2009 VCM consensus guideline (a serum creatinine (SCr) increase of ≥0.5 mg/dL or ≥ 50% of the baseline SCr for ≥2 consecutive measurements) or AKIN stage 1 (SCr increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL or ≥ 1.5 times the baseline SCr).

Outcome analysis for the evaluation of different monitoring strategies

Our analysis of the differences in monitoring strategies defined effectiveness and safety as the primary outcome measures. Effectiveness was defined as mortality, while nephrotoxicity was defined according to the 2009 VCM consensus guideline or AKIN stage 1, as described above.

Assessment of the risk of bias

Two of the four reviewers (MT, HM, NK, and YM) independently assessed the methodologic quality and risk of bias based on the Cochrane Collaboration (Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions, ROBINS-I) [17]. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third person a resolution was reached.

Analysis of the results and statistical analyses

We performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager for Windows (RevMan, Version 5.3, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) and prepared forest plots. We calculated the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I2. I2 values of ≥50%, 25–50%, and ≤ 25% were regarded as strong, moderate, and no heterogeneity, respectively.

Results

Search results

In database searching for VCM target trough concentrations evaluation, we obtained 3293 articles to be screened (Fig. 1a). Of these, 86 articles were further examined in detail, and finally, eight studies [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25] were included in the meta-analysis for effectiveness evaluation, 16 studies [9, 20, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] were included in the meta-analysis for safety evaluation, and one study was included in both analyses (Kullar 2011).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the selection process for studies. a Studies of trough-guided monitoring strategy associated with effectiveness and safety of VCM treatment. b Studies of AUC-guided monitoring strategy associated with effectiveness and safety of VCM treatment. c Studies of AUC-guided monitoring vs. trough-guided monitoring strategy associated with effectiveness and safety of VCM treatment

Full size image

In database searching for VCM target AUC values evaluation, we obtained 1029 articles to be screened (Fig. 1b). Of these, 31 articles were further examined in detail, and finally, five studies [22, 23, 40,41,42] included in the meta-analysis for effectiveness evaluation, five studies [15, 43,44,45,46] were included in the meta-analysis for safety evaluation.

In database searching for the different monitoring strategies, we obtained 3156 articles to be screened (Fig. 1c). Of these, six articles were further examined in detail, and finally, four studies [15, 47,48,49] were included in the meta-analysis.

Characteristics

The characteristics of the eight studies on effectiveness and the 16 studies on safety that were included in the meta-analysis of evaluating target trough concentrations are shown in Table 1. Of these, Song 2015, Obara 2016, Shime 2018, and de Almeida 2019 were prospective; the others were retrospective. The trough concentrations were measured at various times, including initial, mean, steady-state, and highest.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies for target trough evaluation
Full size table

The characteristics of the five studies on effectiveness and five studies on safety that were included in our meta-analysis evaluating target AUC values are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Three studies (Song 2015, Meng 2019, and Lodies 2020) were prospective studies; others were retrospective.

Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies for target AUC/MIC based on effectiveness
Full size table
Table 3 Characteristics of the included studies for target AUC based on nephrotoxicity
Full size table

The characteristics of the four studies included in our meta-analysis of differences in monitoring strategies are shown in Table 4. The target AUC values were as follow: Finch 2017: 400–600 μg × hr./mL, Neely 2018, Meng 2019: 400–800 μg × hr./mL, and Oda 2020: > 400 μg × hr./mL. Target trough concentrations were as follows: Finch 2017 and Oda 2020, 15–20 μg/mL and Neely 2018 and Meng 2019, 10–20 μg/mL.

Table 4 Characteristics of the included studies for AUC and trough-guided monitoring
Full size table

Assessment of the risks of bias

The results of the assessment of the risk of bias are presented in Fig. 2. Three studies (Kullar 2011, Ley 2013, and Obara 2016) showed high risks of confounding and selection biases. No problems in intervention bias were identified and few problems were identified regarding missing data and measurement of outcome biases. No information was available for deviation from the intended intervention and reporting biases.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Methodological quality summary for each included study. The studies included in the evaluation of target trough concentration for a effectiveness and b safety. The studies included in the evaluation of c target AUC/MIC for effectiveness and d AUC for safety. e The studies included in the evaluation of effectiveness and safety associated with VCM monitoring strategy

Full size image

Outcome analysis for the association of VCM target trough concentrations with effectiveness in adult patients

The VCM trough concentrations were divided into two groups, ≥10 μg/mL and < 10 μg/mL or ≥ 15 μg/mL and < 15 μg/mL, and a meta-analysis of treatment failure was performed. Both studies included in Fig. 3a were on MRSA bacteraemia. No significant difference in treatment failure was observed for VCM trough concentrations ≥10 μg/mL vs. < 10 μg/mL (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.30–1.86, p = 0.53) (Fig.3a). However, trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL had significantly lower treatment failure rates than those of < 15 μg/mL in patients with MRSA bacteraemia (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47–0.85, p = 0.003) (Fig. 3b). We also performed this analysis in patients with MRSA infection, which was not restricted to bacteraemia, and found no significant differences between ≥15 μg/mL and < 15 μg/mL (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58–1.25) (Supplementary Fig. S1).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the treatment failure associated with VCM trough concentration. The vertical line indicates no significant difference between the groups compared. Diamond shapes and horizontal lines represent ORs and 95% CIs, respectively. Squares indicate point estimates, and the size of each square indicates the weight of each study included in this meta-analysis. a ≥10 μg/mL vs. < 10 μg/mL. b ≥15 μg/mL vs. < 15 μg/mL

Full size image

Outcome analysis for the association between VCM target trough concentrations and safety

Trough concentrations were granularly divided into several categories before performing the meta-analysis. As shown in Fig. 4, the AKI incidence rates were significantly higher for (1) trough concentrations of 10–15 μg/mL compared to those < 10 μg/mL (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22–2.47, p = 0.002), (2) trough concentrations of 15–20 μg/mL compared to those of 10–15 μg/mL (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.16–2.27, p = 0.004), (3) trough concentrations > 20 μg/mL compared to those 15–20 μg/mL (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.78–3.20, p < 0.00001). The AKI incidence rates increased higher as VCM trough concentrations increased, with ORs markedly increasing at concentrations ≥20 μg/mL (Fig. 4c).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of the risk of nephrotoxicity associated with VCM trough concentration. The vertical line indicates no significant difference between the groups compared. Diamond shapes and horizontal lines represent ORs and 95% CIs, respectively. Squares indicate point estimates, and the size of each square indicates the weight of each study included in this meta-analysis. a 10–15 μg/mL vs. < 10 μg/mL. b 15–20 μg/mL vs. 10–15 μg/mL. c > 20 μg/mL vs. 15–20 μg/mL

Full size image

Outcome analysis for the association between VCM target AUC/MIC ratios and AUC values with effectiveness and safety

As analysis conducted using an AUC/MIC cutoff of 400 (400 ± 15%, 392.7–451) as an indicator of effectiveness showed that compared to low AUC/MIC ratios, high AUC/MIC ratios had significantly lower treatment failure rates (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18–0.45, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 5a). Based on the results of the analysis conducted using an AUC cut-off of 600 (600 ± 15%, 550–683) as an indicator of safety, the VCM-induced AKI incidence rates were significantly higher for high AUC values than for low AUC values (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.13–3.89, p = 0.02) (Fig. 5b).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of treatment failure and risk of nephrotoxicity associated with VCM AUC/MIC ratio and AUC value. The vertical line indicates no significant difference between the groups compared Diamond shapes and horizontal lines represent ORs and 95% CIs, respectively. Squares indicate point estimates, and the size of each square indicates the weight of each study included in this meta-analysis. a The OR of treatment failure associated with AUC/MIC ratios restricted with 400 ± 15% (392.7–451). b The OR of risk of nephrotoxicity associated with AUC values restricted with 600 ± 15% (550–683)

Full size image

Outcome analysis of the differences between monitoring strategies

The mortality rates did not differ significantly between AUC-guided monitoring and trough-guided monitoring (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.06–5.42) (Fig. 6a). While the incidence of AKI associated with VCM tended to be lower for AUC-guided monitoring than for trough-guided monitoring, the difference was not significant (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.28–1.01, p = 0.05) (Fig. 6b).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot of the effectiveness and risk of nephrotoxicity associated with VCM monitoring. The vertical line indicates no significant difference between the groups compared Diamond shapes and horizontal lines represent ORs and 95% CIs, respectively. Squares indicate point estimates, and the size of each square indicates the weight of each study included in this meta-analysis. a The OR of mortality associated with different monitoring strategies. b The OR of risk of nephrotoxicity associated with the difference in monitoring strategy

Full size image

Discussion

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of VCM trough concentrations. We observed a significantly lower treatment failure rate among bacteraemia patients with trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL. However, we observed no significant difference in patients with MRSA infection. This may be because the subject population studied in the latter case including a large number of MRSA pneumonia patients. Even when MRSA is detected in a patient’s sputum, it is often not the causative agent of the infection in question, but rather a colonising species, making the diagnosis of MRSA pneumonia extremely difficult [50,51,52,53]. However, when bacteraemia is concerned, the causative agent can be definitively identified as MRSA through blood culture. We found that trough concentrations of ≥15 mg/L were used for the treatment of MRSA bacteraemia.

We also performed a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between trough concentrations and AKI incidence through granularly defined trough concentration categories. The AKI incidence rates significantly increased as trough concentrations increased. Particularly, when trough concentrations were ≥ 20 μg/mL, the odds ratio of AKI markedly increased. Several reports have explored the relationship between VCM-induced AKI incidence and trough concentrations [8, 10, 33, 54]. AKI incidence rates reportedly increase with trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL and further increased for trough concentrations ≥20 μg/mL [8, 10, 54]. Thus, we believe that VCM trough concentrations should be kept below 20 μg/mL at all times and minimised wherever possible.

The AUC value is the best indicator of VCM effectiveness and safety. To define the target AUC values for effectiveness, we performed analyses based on an AUC/MIC cutoff value of 400 ± 15%. We observed that high AUC/MIC ratios were significantly superior to low AUC/MIC ratios. Similar to that of effectiveness, we also performed an analysis based on an AUC cutoff values of 600 ± 15% to define the target AUC values for safety. We observed that high AUC values significantly increased the AKI incidence rates. Consistent with our results and previous reports [4, 55], the recommended target AUC value threshold for avoiding VCM-induced AKI is approximately 600 μg × h/mL. While, trough concentrations are used primarily as alternate indicators of AUC values, recent reports suggest that the measurement of trough concentrations alone is not sufficient for the proper evaluation of AUC values [56,57,58,59]. Neely et al. showed that a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.94 between AUC values calculated with VCM concentrations measured from blood collected at five or six points and AUC values calculated using peak and trough concentrations. The correlation coefficient (r2) between the former AUC values and those calculated using only trough concentrations was 0.70. Other reports also indicate that at least two points of measurement of peak and trough concentrations are needed to accurately calculate AUC levels. The present study incorporated two new reports to those used by Aljefri et al. in their analysis [14] and carried out a meta-analysis of the relationship between the incidence of kidney injury and AUC-guided vs. trough-guided monitoring. We found that AUC-guided monitoring was associated with lower incidence rates of kidney injury. However, the mortality rates did not differ significantly between AUC-guided monitoring and trough-guided monitoring. The target AUC values and trough concentrations in each study incorporated into this meta-analysis differed. Dalton et al. concluded that it was difficult to calculate the optimal target AUC/MIC as the AUC estimation method and study background varied among the studies [6]. In the future, a comparative trial of AUC-guided vs. trough-guided monitoring with appropriately defined target AUC values and trough concentrations is needed to determine if AUC-guided monitoring lowers the risk of mortality and AKI.

This study has subject to several limitations. First, most of the reports incorporated in our analyses were observational studies. The design of these studies may result in allocation bias, selection bias, and various types of other confounding factors in our results. Further, publication bias, in particular, is quite likely; that is, the idea that papers that demonstrate an effect of monitoring strategy differences on the primary outcome (AKI incidence) are preferentially selected and published. Second, the trials included in this study used several different definitions of AKI. Third, the detailed MICs of VCM were not available in the analysis of the effectiveness of VCM target trough concentrations. Therefore, we could not perform a subgroup analysis by MIC. Fourth, the methods used for the calculation of AUC values varied considerably among papers. Thus, to address these issues, future research efforts should involve large-scale prospective randomised clinical trials, which will enable further high-quality meta-analyses.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis identified trough concentrations and AUC values of VCM associated with its effectiveness and safety. Furthermore, compared to trough-guided monitoring, AUC-guided monitoring showed higher potential to reduce the incidence of VCM-induced AKI. Further high-quality trials exploring monitoring strategies for VCM use and the safety and effectiveness of VCM are needed to expand the research horizons in this area.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

VCM:

Vancomycin

MRSA:

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

TDM:

Therapeutic drug monitoring

AUC:

Area under the curve

MIC:

Minimum inhibitor concentration

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Levine DP. Vancomycin: a history. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(Suppl 1):S5–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/491709.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Men P, Li HB, Di Zhai S, Zhao RS. Association between the AUC0-24 /MIC ratio of vancomycin and its clinical effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, Levine DP, Bradley JS, Liu C, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatr. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77:835–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Matsumoto K, Takesue Y, Ohmagari N, Mochizuki T, Mikamo H, Seki M, et al. Practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: a consensus review of the Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. J Infect Chemother. 2013;19:365–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10156-013-0599-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dalton BR, Rajakumar I, Langevin A, Ondro C, Sabuda D, Griener TP, et al. Vancomycin area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio predicting clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis with pooled sensitivity and specificity. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26:436–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.10.029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ye ZK, Chen YL, Chen K, Zhang XL, Du GH, He B, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: a guideline of the division of therapeutic drug monitoring, Chinese pharmacological society. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:3020–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tongsai S, Koomanachai P. The safety and efficacy of high versus low vancomycin trough levels in the treatment of patients with infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a meta-analysis. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:1–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lodise TP, Patel N, Lomaestro BM, Rodvold KA, Drusano GL. Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration-time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:507–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bellos I, Daskalakis G, Pergialiotis V. Relationship of vancomycin trough levels with acute kidney injury risk: an exposure-toxicity meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75:2725–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Hal SJ, Paterson DL, Lodise TP. Systematic review and meta-analysis of vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity associated with dosing schedules that maintain troughs between 15 and 20 milligrams per liter. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:734–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pais GM, Avedissian SN, Nicholas O’Donnell J, Rhodes NJ, Lodise TP, Prozialeck WC, et al. Comparative performance of urinary biomarkers for vancomycin-induced kidney injury according to timeline of injury. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63:e00079–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Avedissian SN, Pais GM, O’Donnell JN, Lodise TP, Liu J, Prozialeck WC, et al. Twenty-four hour pharmacokinetic relationships for intravenous vancomycin and novel urinary biomarkers of acute kidney injury in a rat model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74:2326–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Aljefri DM, Avedissian SN, Rhodes NJ, Postelnick MJ, Nguyen K, Scheetz MH. Vancomycin area under the curve and acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69:1881–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Meng L, Wong T, Huang S, Mui E, Nguyen V, Espinosa G, et al. Conversion from vancomycin trough concentration–guided dosing to area under the curve–guided dosing using two sample measurements in adults: implementation at an Academic Medical Center. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39:433–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Olson J, Hersh AL, Sorensen J, Zobell J, Anderson C, Thorell EA. Intravenous vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring in children: evaluation of a pharmacy-driven protocol and collaborative practice agreement. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019;9:334–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins J. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). 2011. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hermsen ED, Hanson M, Sankaranarayanan J, Stoner JA, Florescu MC, Rupp ME. Clinical outcomes and nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin trough concentrations during treatment of deep-seated infections. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2010;9:9–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clemens EC, Chan JD, Lynch JB, Dellit TH. Relationships between vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration, dosing strategies, and outcomes in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;71:408–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.08.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kullar R, Davis SL, Levine DP, Rybak MJ. Impact of vancomycin exposure on outcomes in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: support for consensus guidelines suggested targets. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:975–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Casapao AM, Leonard SN, Davis SL, Lodise TP, Patel N, Goff DA, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:4252–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghosh N, Chavada R, Maley M, van Hal SJ. Impact of source of infection and vancomycin AUC0-24/MICBMD targets on treatment failure in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:O1098–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Song KH, Bin KH, Kim HS, Lee MJ, Jung Y, Kim G, et al. Impact of area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio on vancomycin treatment outcomes in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46:689–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fu CF, Da Huang J, Wang JT, Lin SW, Wu CC. The ratio of pre-dialysis vancomycin trough serum concentration to minimum inhibitory concentration is associated with treatment outcomes in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. PLoS One. 2018;13:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mogle BT, Steele JM, Seabury RW, Dang UJ, Kufel WD. Implementation of a two-point pharmacokinetic AUC-based vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring approach in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;52:805–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.08.024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hirano R, Sakamoto Y, Kitazawa J, Yamamoto S, Tachibana N. Pharmacist-managed dose adjustment feedback using therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin was useful for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a single institution experience. Infect Drug Resist. 2016;9:243–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chuma M, Makishima M, Imai T, Tochikura N, Suzuki S, Kuwana T, et al. Relationship between initial vancomycin trough levels and early-onset vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity in critically ill patients. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Huang M, Wu H, Zhou J, Xu M, Zhou S. Efficacy of vancomycin on gram-positive bacterial infection in elderly critical patients and risk factors associated with nephrotoxicity. Arch Iran Med. 2018;21:349–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park SJ, Lim NR, Park HJ, Yang JW, Kim MJ, Kim K, et al. Evaluation of risk factors for vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40:1328–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0634-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shime N, Saito N, Bokui M, Sakane N, Kamimura M, Shinohara T, et al. Clinical outcomes after initial treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:1073–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. de Almeida CDC, Simões e Silva AC, de Queiroz Oliveira JA, Fonseca Batista IS, Pereira FH, Gonçalves JE, et al. Vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity in non-critically ill patients admitted in a Brazilian public hospital: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2019;14:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cano EL, Haque NZ, Welch VL, Cely CM, Peyrani P, Scerpella EG, et al. Incidence of nephrotoxicity and association with vancomycin use in intensive care unit patients with pneumonia: retrospective analysis of the IMPACT-HAP database. Clin Ther. 2012;34:149–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.12.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Horey A, Mergenhagen KA, Mattappallil A. The relationship of nephrotoxicity to vancomycin trough serum concentrations in a veteran’s population: a retrospective analysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46:1477–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prabaker KK, Tran TPH, Pratummas T, Goetz MB, Graber CJ. Elevated vancomycin trough is not associated with nephrotoxicity among inpatient veterans. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:91–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fujii S, Takahashi S, Makino S, Kunimoto Y, Nakata H, Noda N, et al. Impact of vancomycin or linezolid therapy on development of renal dysfunction and thrombocytopenia in Japanese patients. Chemotherapy. 2014;59:319–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ley EJ, Liou DZ, Singer MB, Mirocha J, Srour M, Bukur M, et al. Supratherapeutic vancomycin levels after trauma predict acute kidney injury and mortality. J Surg Res. 2013;184:501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.04.047.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barriere SL, Stryjewski ME, Corey GR, Genter FC, Rubinstein E. Effect of vancomycin serum trough levels on outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia due to Staphylococcus aureus: a retrospective, post hoc, subgroup analysis of the phase 3 ATTAIN studies. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:1–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Obara VY, Zacas CP, De Maio Carrilho CMD, Delfino VDA. Currently used dosage regimens of vancomycin fail to achieve therapeutic levels in approximately 40% of intensive care unit patients. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2016;28:380–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hammoud K, Brimacombe M, Yu A, Goodloe N, Haidar W, El Atrouni W. Vancomycin trough and acute kidney injury: a large retrospective, cohort study. Am J Nephrol. 2016;44:456–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zelenitsky S, Rubinstein E, Ariano R, Iacovides H, Dodek P, Mirzanejad Y, et al. Vancomycin pharmacodynamics and survival in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-associated septic shock. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;41:255–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.10.015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jung Y, Song KH, Cho JE, Kim HS, Kim NH, Kim TS, et al. Area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio as a predictor of vancomycin treatment outcome in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;43:179–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Makmor-Bakry M, Ahmat ANMF, Shamsuddin AF, Lau CL, Ramli R. Association between single trough-based area under the curve estimation of vancomycin and treatment outcome among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia patients. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2019;51:218–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chavada R, Ghosh N, Sandaradura I, Maley M, Van Hald SJ. Establishment of an AUC0–24 threshold for nephrotoxicity is a step towards individualized vancomycin dosing for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e02535–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Zasowski EJ, Murray KP, Trinh TD, Finch NA, Pogue JM, Mynatt RP, et al. Identification of vancomycin exposure-toxicity thresholds in hospitalized patients receiving intravenous vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e01684–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Brunetti L, Song JH, Suh D, Kim HJ, Seong YH, Lee DS, et al. The risk of vancomycin toxicity in patients with liver impairment. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2020;19:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-020-00354-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lodise TP, Rosenkranz SL, Finnemeyer M, Evans S, Sims M, Zervos MJ, et al. The emperor’s new clothes: prospective observational evaluation of the association between initial vancomycin exposure and failure rates among adult hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (PROVIDE). Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70:1536–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Finch NA, Zasowski EJ, Murray KP, Mynatt RP, Zhao JJ, Yost R, et al. A quasi-experiment to study the impact of vancomycin area under the concentration-time curve-guided dosing on vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01293-17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Neely MN, Kato L, Youn G, Kraler L, Bayard D, Van Guilder M, et al. Prospective trial on the use of trough concentration versus area under the curve to determine therapeutic vancomycin dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e02042–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Oda K, Jono H, Nosaka K, Saito H. Reduced nephrotoxicity in vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring guided by area under the concentration-time curve against a trough 15–20 μg/mL concentration. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020:106109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106109.

  50. Enomoto Y, Yokomura K, Hasegawa H, Ozawa Y, Matsui T, Suda T. Healthcare-associated pneumonia with positive respiratory methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus culture: predictors of the true pathogenicity. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17:456–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nagaoka K, Yanagihara K, Harada Y, Yamada K, Migiyama Y, Morinaga Y, et al. Predictors of the pathogenicity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia. Respirology. 2014;19:556–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sakaguchi M, Shime N, Fujita N, Fujiki S, Hashimoto S. Current problems in the diagnosis and treatment of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. J Anesth. 2008;22:125–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kawanami T, Yatera K, Yamasaki K, Noguchi S, Fukuda K, Akata K, et al. Clinical impact of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus on bacterial pneumonia: cultivation and 16S ribosomal RNA gene analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1493-3.

  54. Van Hal SJ, Lodise TP, Paterson DL. The clinical significance of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration in Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:755–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Finch NA, Zasowski EJ, Murray KP, Mynatt RP, Zhao JJ, Yost R, et al. A quasi-experiment to study the impact of vancomycin area under the nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Clark L, Skrupky LP, Servais R, Brummitt CF, Dilworth TJ. Examining the relationship between vancomycin area under the concentration time curve and serum trough levels in adults with presumed or documented Staphylococcal infections. Ther Drug Monit. 2019;41:483–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kamel AB, Bourguignon L, Marcos M, Ducher M, Goutelle S. Is trough concentration of vancomycin predictive of the area under the curve? A clinical study in elderly patients. Ther Drug Monit. 2017;39:83–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Pai MP, Neely M, Rodvold KA, Lodise TP. Innovative approaches to optimizing the delivery of vancomycin in individual patients. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;77:50–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2014.05.016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Neely MN, Youn G, Jones B, Jelliffe RW, Drusano GL, Rodvold KA, et al. Are vancomycin trough concentrations adequate for optimal dosing? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:309–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Moeko Tsutsuura and Hiromu Moriyama contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pharmacodynamics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan

    Moeko Tsutsuura, Hiromu Moriyama, Nana Kojima, Yuki Mizukami, Sho Tashiro, Sumika Osa, Yuki Enoki, Kazuaki Taguchi & Kazuaki Matsumoto

  2. Department of Pharmacy, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto-shi, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan

    Kazutaka Oda

  3. Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, 16-291, South 1, West 16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8543, Japan

    Satoshi Fujii

  4. Department of Pharmacy, Hyogo College of Medicine, 1-1, Mukogawa-machi, Nishinomiya, 663-8501, Japan

    Yoshiko Takahashi

  5. Department of Pharmacy, Tokyo Women’s Medical University Hospital, 8-1, Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0054, Japan

    Yukihiro Hamada & Toshimi Kimura

  6. Department of Infection Control and Prevention, Hyogo College of Medicine, 1-1, Mukogawa-cho, Nishinomiya, 663-8501, Japan

    Yoshio Takesue

Authors
  1. Moeko Tsutsuura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiromu Moriyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nana Kojima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuki Mizukami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sho Tashiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sumika Osa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuki Enoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kazuaki Taguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kazutaka Oda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Satoshi Fujii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yoshiko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yukihiro Hamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Toshimi Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Yoshio Takesue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Kazuaki Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YT2 organised and coordinated the study. KM was the chief investigator and the data analyst. MT, HM, NK, YM, ST, SO, YE, KT, KO, SF, YT1, YH, and TK developed the study design. All authors contributed to the writing of the final manuscript, approved its publication, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuki Enoki.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MT, HM, NK, YM, ST, SO, YE, KT, SF, YT1, YH, and TK report no conflicts of interest. YT2 received research grants from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharm Co., Ltd., Astellas Pharm, Inc., and MSD Japan. KM received a research grant from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

: Table S1. Search strategy for the evaluation of VCM target trough concentrations. Table S2. Search strategy for the evaluation of VCM target AUC values. Table S3. Search strategy for the evaluation of different monitoring strategies. Table S4. Definitions of outcome criteria in included studies.

Additional file 2

: Fig. S1. Forest plot of the treatment failure associated with VCM trough concentra-tion in patients with all MRSA infection. The vertical line indicates no significant difference between the groups compared. Dia-mond shapes and horizontal lines represent ORs and 95% CIs, respectively. Squares in-dicate point estimates, and the size of each square indicates the weight of each study in-cluded in this meta-analysis. VCM trough concentrations were divided into ≥15 μg/mL and < 15 μg/mL.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsutsuura, M., Moriyama, H., Kojima, N. et al. The monitoring of vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analyses of area under the concentration-time curve-guided dosing and trough-guided dosing. BMC Infect Dis 21, 153 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05858-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05858-6

Keywords

  • Vancomycin
  • Trough
  • AUC
  • Nephrotoxicity
  • Meta-analysis

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us