Next Article in Journal
An Integrated Multidisciplinary Circuit Led by Hospital and Community Pharmacists to Implement Clopidogrel Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Practice
Next Article in Special Issue
Antibiotic De-Escalation in Critically Ill Patients with Negative Clinical Cultures
Previous Article in Journal
Risk Factors for Bloodstream Infections Due to ESBL-Producing Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Proteus mirabilis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Leveling Up: Evaluation of IV v. PO Linezolid Utilization and Cost after an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Revision of IV to PO Conversion Criteria within a Healthcare System
Brief Report
Peer-Review Record

Residual Infusion Performance Evaluation (RIPE): A Single-Center Evaluation of Residual Volume Post-Intravenous Eravacycline Infusion

by Alysa J. Baumann 1,*, Kerry O. Cleveland 2, Michael S. Gelfand 2, Nicholson B. Perkins III 3, Angela D. Covington 4 and Athena L. V. Hobbs 5
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 22 February 2023 / Revised: 29 March 2023 / Accepted: 11 April 2023 / Published: 13 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pharmacist-Led Antimicrobial Stewardship 2.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find the topic of this study very interesting.

However, there are a few limitations that have to be addressed and improved:

 1. Research design: as this was not a randomized study and there was no time-control group for the intervention, this has to be addressed in the limitation section of the Discussion.

2.  Sample size: the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups are very different in size. This is very problematic, from a statistical point of view.

3. The finding that day and night shifts have extremely different values in the residual volume of medications, before any interventions, is fascinating and has to be more clearly presented and further addressed in the manuscript.

Kind regards


Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your submission.

Some more information on the reconstitution and dilution of the formulation would be helpful for readers (e.g. solutions used); the drug is not even available in my country but I have looked up the US prescribing information.

It is unclear whether the residual volume includes the 5mL of added eravacycline solution e.g. is 85mL actually 34% of the bag volume or is it 33% (if the bag volume is 255mL)?

How exactly was the residual volume physically measured?

“The average remaining amount of eravacycline was 13.5 mg during pre-intervention, which equated to 15.3% of the total dose. The average remaining dose of eravacycline was 4.7 mg in the post-intervention period, equating to approximately 4.7% of total dose remaining in the residual volume.” Again, are these calculations based on the initial bag volume being 250mL or 255mL?

Figure 3 is unnecessary.

The legend for Fig 2 includes a box labelled “indications”.

Line 134. This sentence could be improved: “Similarly, the average length of stay and duration of eravacycline therapy was similar.”

Did what amount to effectively increasing the administered dose of the drug (by about 10-15%) lead to any adverse reactions e.g. palpitations, GI side effects? This leads on to something that perhaps should be discussed (and is more relevant to some of the other antimicrobial drugs, with narrower therapeutic margins, mentioned by the authors): if the clinical trials that established the recommended doses found within the official prescribing information also had the same residual volume issues in practice, aren’t the authors now potentially increasing the dose of all these drugs?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop