A retrospective analysis to estimate trough concentrations of teicoplanin in patients with suspected or documented Gram-positive infections

Abstract

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic commonly used to treat Gram-positive bacterial infections in the clinic. The aim of this study was to provide a therapeutic reference for the clinical application and dosage regimen adjustment of teicoplanin by identifying factors associated with its plasma trough concentration (C_trough). A retrospective study was performed on patients with suspected or documented Gram-positive infections who were hospitalized from November 2017 to January 2020 and treated with teicoplanin while undergoing routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). A total of 112 C_trough trough measurements were obtained from 72 patients were included in this study. SPSS software was used for correlation analysis and receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. The C_trough for teicoplanin showed statistically significant relationships (P<0.05) with PLT, S_cr, CL_cr, eGFR, BUN and Cys-C. ROC curve analysis revealed that CL_cr and eGFR were more sensitive and specific for C_trough compared to the other factors. These findings should be considered in the clinical application of teicoplanin and for its dosage adjustment.

Keywords:
Teicoplanin; HPLC; Therapeutic drug monitoring; Trough concentration; Creatinine clearance; Estimated glomerular filtration rate

INTRODUCTION

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic developed after the discovery of vancomycin and is composed of structurally similar compounds (Marcone et al., 2018). It has similar antibacterial activity and mechanism of action to vancomycin, mainly by blocking the biosynthesis of cell walls. Teicoplanin is recommended for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE), Streptococcus, Enterococcus and the majority of anerobic positive bacteria (Tascini et al., 2012; Sader et al., 2019).

Teicoplanin, cannot be absorbed orally and, is thus usually administered by intramuscular or intravenous injection. It binds strongly to plasma proteins and has a binding rate of approximately 90%. It also has good tissue permeability and is distributed mainly in the lung, myocardium and bone tissues, but has poor penetrateion into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Teicoplanin has a long plasma half-life and its non-metabolic form is excreted mainly through the kidneys. Compared to vancomycin, teicoplanin needs a longer time period to achieve the steady-state concentration (Takechi et al., 2017; Electronic Medicines Compendium, 2017).

Glycopeptide antibiotics are time-dependent and have long post-antibiotic effects (PAE). The ratio of the area under the drug concentration-time curve (AUC) to the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is refered to as the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameter, and is correlated with antibacterial efficacy and clinical outcomes Craig, 2003; (Ramos-Martín et al., 2017). The PK/PD parameter for teicoplanin is the AUC during 24 h (AUC₂₄/MIC). Clinical targets for the treatment of general and severe infections are AUC₂₄/MIC ≥125 and AUC₂₄/MIC ≥345, respectively (Ahn et al., 2011; Matsumoto et al., 2016). For clinical treatment, the plasma trough concentrations (C_trough) for teicoplanin as measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is >10 mg/L for most Gram-positive bacterial infections and 15-30 mg/L for severe infections such as endocarditis or bloodstream infection. When measured by fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA), the C_trough is >15 mg/L for most infections, >20 mg/L for bone or prosthetic infections, and 30-40 mg/L for endocarditis (Roberts et al., 2012; Ueda et al., 2012; Kato et al., 2016; Electronic Medicines Compendium, 2017).

The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the relationship between various physiological factors and the C_trough for teicoplanin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient enrollment

Patients, suspected or documented Gram-positive infections enrolled in this study were admitted to the First Hospital of China Medical University between November 2017 and January 2020. They received intravenous teicoplanin treatment and TDM was performed at least 24 h afterwards, with at least more than one Ctrough measurement obtained from each patient.

Exclusion criteria: were (1) patients who were younger than 18 years old; (2) patients undergoing renal replacement therapy; and (3) patients for which clinical data was unavailable.

Chromatography conditions

An Agilent 1100 HPLC system (Agilent Technologies, Japan) was adopted for sample analysis. An ODS Hypersil column (250 mm×4.6 mm, 5μm) was used for separation and the temperature was maintained at 40 ºC. The mobile phase consisted of 10 mM sodium dihydrogen phosphate buffer (pH=2.3): acetonitrile at 75:25 (v/v) with a flow rate of 1.2 ml/min. Ultraviolet measurements were carried out at 215 nm. The linear range of the calibration standard curve was 3.125-100 mg/L and the intra-and inter-coefficients of variation were all < 11.0%. This method was suitable for the clinical TDM of teicoplanin.

Sample preperation

Blood samples were collected into EDTA tubes just before the next teicoplanin administration. Plasma samples were obtained after centrifuging at 4,500 rpm for 10 min. Aliquots of 50 μl of internal standard (piperacillin sodium) and 400 μl of plasma were placed into a 2.0 ml microtube and 600 μl of acetonitrile was then added. After vortex-mixing for 30 s and centrifugation at 13,000 rpm for 5 min, 900 μl of the supernatant was placed into another microtube. Dichloromethane (400 μl) was then added, the mixture was vortexed for 30 s and then centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 5 min again. The supernatant was carefully collected and a volume of 20 μl was injected for HPLC analysis.

Data collection and groups

Demographic and clinical data were collected from each patient’s individual medical records. Demographic information included gender, age, height and weight. Laboratory information included routine blood, hepatic and renal function markers such as lymphocyte (LY), neutrophil (NE), ratio of neutrophil (NE%), hemoglobin (HGB), platelet (PLT), total protein (TP), serum albumin (ALB), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin (TBIL), serum creatinine concentration (S_cr), creatinine clearance (CL_cr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and cystatin C (Cys-C). Clinical information included TDM results, the type of infectious organisms and the concomitant antibacterials used. Patients were divided into two groups based on Ctrough as follows: Group A had a C_trough <10 mg/L (n=28) and Group B had a C_trough ≥10 mg/L (n=84). CL_cr and eGFR were calculated using the Cockroft - Gault formula (Cockcroft, Gault, 1976) and the abbreviated MDRD formula (Foundation, 2002) respectively:

$C{L}_{cr}=\left(140-\text{age}\left(\text{years}\right)\right)\times \text{weight}\left(kg\right)/\left(0.818\times S_{cr}\left(\mu mol/L\right)\right)\text{Males}$

$C{L}_{cr}=0.85\times \left(140-\text{age}\left(\text{years}\right)\right)\times \text{weight}\left(kg\right)/\left(0.818\times S_{cr}\left(\mu mol/L\right)\right)\text{Females}$

$eGFR\left(ml/min/1.73m^2\right)=186\times {\left(S_{cr}\left(mg/dL\right)\right)}^{-1.154}\times {\left(\text{age}\left(\text{years}\right)\right)}^{-0.203}\text{Males}$

$eGFR\left(ml/min/1.73m^2\right)=0.742\times 186\times {\left(S_{cr}\left(mg/dL\right)\right)}^{-1.154}\times {\left(\text{age}\left(\text{years}\right)\right)}^{-0.203}\text{Females}$

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as the mean±standard deviation (SD) or as the median and interquartile (IQR) range. The Spearman method was used for correlation analysis. A P value of <0.05 was considered to represent statistical significance. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between C_trough and defferent variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The demographic and clinical data of patients in this study are shown in Table I. A total number of 72 patients (44 males and 28 females) with an age range of 19-92 years (63±15 years) and weight range of 42-100 kg (65±11 kg) were enrolled. The main types of infections during hospitalization were abdominal infections (27.8%), bloodstream infections (27.8%) and pneumonia infections (16.7%), while the responsible organisms were Enterococcus (19/61), Staphyloccocus (16/61), Acinetobacter baumannii (7/61), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6/61), Klebsiella pneumonia (4/61) and Cornebacterium striatum (3/61).

TABLE I
Demographic and clinical data of patients

Characteristics	Values
Demographic characteristics (mean±SD (range))
Number of patients	72
Gender (males/female, n)	44/28
Age (years)	63±15 (19-92)
Height (m)	1.67± 0.08 (1.50-1.90)
Weight (kg)	65 ±11 (40-100)
BMI (kg/m 2 )	23.33±3.37 (16.53-32.39)
Type of infection, n(%)
Abdominal	20 (27.8)
Bloodstream	20 (27.8)
Pneumonia	12 (16.7)
Endocarditis	4 (5.5)
Skin and soft tissue	8 (11.1)
Other a	8 (11.1)
Clinical characteristics (median (IQR))
WBC (10 9 /L)	8.22 (5.76-13.39)
LY (10 9 /L)	0.91 (0.65-1.51)
NE (10 9 /L)	6.30 (3.95-11.42)
NE% (%)	79.2 (67.8-85.9)
HGB (g/L)	103 (88-106)
PLT (10 9 /L)	234 (143-360)
TP (g/L)	56.4 (50.7-63.8)
ALB (g/L)	27.8 (24.4-32.3)
ALT (U/L) b	27 (12-52)
AST (U/L) c	24 (19-42)
TBIL (μmol/L)	11.2 (7.4-16.6)
S cr (μmol/L)	60 (44-79)
CL (ml/min) d	100.4 (63.6-126.2)
eGFR (ml/min/1.73m 2 ) e	117.5 (89.6-148.0)
BUN (mmol/L)	4.8 (3.3-7.6)
Cys-C (mg/L) f	1.26 (0.90-1.80)
Infectious organisms g
Acinetobacter baumannii	7
Cornebacterium striatum	3
Enterococcus	19
Klebsiella pneumonia	4
Pseudomonas aeruginosa	6
Staphyloccocus	16
Other	6
Concomitant antibacterials h
Cefoperazone and Sulbactam	15
Piperacillin and Tazobactam	8
Meropenem	15
Ertapenem	10
Imipenem and Cilastatin	16
Moxifloxacin	6
Other i	5

• ^aincluded pelvic, urinary tract, joint and catheter-related infection;^bALT (n=71); ^cAST (n=58); ^dCL was calculated by Cockroft & Gault formula; ^eeGFR was calculated by MDRD formula; ^fCys-C (n=59); ^gPathogenic bacteria from 43 patients was isolated and some patients were infected by several pathogenic bacteria; ^hsome patients administered more than one antibacterial agent; ⁱ included Cefminox, Ceftriaxone, Ciprofloxacin, Cefotaxime Sodium and Sulbactam Sodium and Cefazolin Sodium. BMI=body mass index; WBC=white blood cell; LY= lymphocyte; NE=neutrophil; NE%=ratio of neutrophil; HGB=hemoglobin; PLT=platelet; TP=total protein; ALB=serum albumin; ALT=alanine aminotransferase; AST=aspartate aminotransferase; TBIL=total bilirubin; S_cr=serum creatinine concentration; CL_cr=creatinine clearance; eGFR=estimated glomerular filtration rate; BUN=blood urea nitrogen; Cys-C=cystatin C.

In total, 112 Ctrough measurements were obtained. There were 46, 38 and 28 concentrations that were collected on days 2 to 4, days 5 to 10 and days >10 of therapy, the mean±SD of the C_trough were 15.46±7.90, 14.63±6.97 and 15.94±4.66 respectely (Figure 1). There was no statistical significance of C_trough among different sampled days of therapy.

FIGURE 1
Trough concentration of teicoplanin of patients measured on days 2 to 4, days 5 to 10 and days >10 of therapy.

The heatmap shown in Figure 2 clearly displays the correlation matrix for the different variables. As listed in Table II, C_trough had a significant positive correlation with S_cr, BUN and Cys-C, but a negative correlation with PLT, CL_cr and eGFR. Higher C_trough was collected with higher values of S_cr, BUN and Cys-C, but with lower values of PLT, eGFR and CL_cr. Only CL_cr and eGFR were significantly different between the two groups (P<0.05) as shown in Table III. ROC analysis curves (Figure 3) revealed that the area under the curve (AUC) of CL_cr and eGFR for C_trough were 0.678 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.555-0.802] and 0.705 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.577-0.832], with cut-offs of 123.8 ml/min and 161.55 ml/min/1.73m² respectively. The AUC of all other factors were all less than < 0.50.

FIGURE 2
Heatmap of the correlation matrix for variables.

TABLE II
Correlation analysis of the relationship of variables with C_trough

Variable	Correlation Coefficient	P
PLT (10 9 /L)	-0.205	0.030
S cr (μmol/L)	0.305	0.001
CL (ml/min) a	-0.365	0.000
eGFR (ml/min/1.73m 2 ) b	-0.376	0.000
BUN (mmol/L)	0.216	0.023
Cys-C (mg/L)	0.460	0.000

• ^aCL_cr was calculated by Cockroft - Gault formula; ^beGFR was calculated by abbreviated MDRD formula;PLT=platelet; S_cr=serum creatinine concentration; CL_cr=creatinine clearance; eGFR=estimated glomerular filtration rate; BUN=blood urea nitrogen; Cys-C=cystatin C.

TABLE III
Characteristics of patients in groups

Item	Median (IQR)		P
	Group A (n=28)	Group B (n=84)
C trough (mg/L)	8.05 (6.6-8.7)	16.4 (13.1-21.2)	0.000
PLT (10 9 /L)	262 (180-421)	253 (168-351)	0.355
S cr (μmol/L)	45 (39-63)	58 (50-71)d	0.712
CL cr (ml/min) a	129.2 (102.1-186.0)	105.6 (73.3-134.2)d	0.008
eGFR (ml/min/1.73m 2 ) b	160.4 (116.8-206.8)	129.0 (98.3-149.7)d	0.004
BUN (mmol/L)	3.5 (2.9-5.7)	5.0 (3.4-6.8)d	0.900
Cys-C (mg/L) f	0.88 (0.76-1.51)c	1.17 (0.97-1.42)e	0.621

• aCL_cr was calculated by Cockroft - Gault formula; ^beGFR was calculated by abbreviated MDRD formula;PLT=platelet; S_cr=serum creatinine concentration; CL_cr=creatinine clearance; eGFR=estimated glomerular filtration rate; BUN=blood urea nitrogen; Cys-C=cystatin C; ^cn=23; ^dn=83^{; e}n=77.

FIGURE 3
ROC plot of CLcr and eGFR (the diagonal is the indifference line).

This retrospective analysis was carried out on patients who were suspected or documented as having with Gram-positive infections and who received treatment with teicoplanin. Correlation analysis revealed that PLT, S_cr, CL_cr, eGFR, BUN and Cys-C were the main factors associated with teicoplanin Ctrough. Several previous studies have also analyzed factors that may influence teicoplanin C_trough. Wang et al. (2015) reported that dosage (mg/kg) and CL_cr were significant factors in their study.

Pea et al. (2003) found that teicoplanin C_trough was correlated with dose/kg on the second or third day of therapy, and with dose/kg, age and CL_cr on the fourth day of therapy.

In their study, the mean C_trough was 15.3 mg/L and the range was 4.9-36.3 mg/L. In the present study, 28/112 (25%) of the teicoplanin C_trough measurements were <10 mg/L. Moreover, all C_trough values were > 10 mg/L when the loading dose was 800 mg, even 24 h after the first administration, while the time to reach target C_trough was longer in patients with a 400 mg loading dose. The teicoplanin C_trough is associated with efficacy and antibacterial response, hence trough levels of > 10 mg/L are required for general or severe infections. Higher loading doses and longer therapy durations are also needed.

The present results also showed that higher C_trough was associated with lower PLT. Previous studies also reported that teicoplanin treatment might cause thrombocytopenia (Hsiao et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013), and specifically immune thrombocytopenia. The proposed mechanism is that drug-dependent anti-platelet antibodies produced by the body which can recognize and react with the platelet membrane glycoprotein complexes IIb/IIa or Ib/IX/V (Kroll, Sun, Santoso, 2000; Garner et al., 2005). The adverse reactions of teicoplanin involving thrombocytopenia are reported as being low probability. However, routine blood tests are still recommended during teicoplanin treatment.

Teicoplanin has antibacterial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE), Streptococcus and Enterococcus. Because some of the patients in this study were infected with two or more pathogenic organisms, combined antibacterial treatments with penicillin/cephalosporin+enzyme inhibitor, carbapenem or quinolone antibiotics were combined used.

Several studies on the comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin versus vancomycin have been conducted since the 1990s. Most showed that teicoplanin had similar efficacy, less adverse reactions and less serious adverse events compared to vancomycin. Some researchers have suggested that teicoplanin could be used as an alternative to vancomycin to treat infections caused by MRSA or other resistant gram-positive organisms (Wood, 1996; Wood, 2000; Svetitsky, Leibovici, Paul, 2009; Yoon et al., 2014). Both teicoplanin and vancomycin are mainly excreted through the kidney and hence their elimination half-life is prolonged in patients with renal failure (Li et al., 2017; Ponce et al., 2018). Considering that the maintenance dose of teicoplanin is onceper day and that it has a lower rate of dose-related nephrotoxicity, teicoplanin is likely to be superior to vancomycin for clinical antibacterial application (Svetitsky, Leibovici, Paul, 2009; Shime et al., 2018).

Several limitations of this study should be considered. First, this was a retrospective analysis conducted at a single center, with some missing data. Second, CL_cr and eGFR were calculated using Cockroft-Gault formula and abbreviated MDRD formula, which may be inconsistent with the measured value. Third, comparisons of teicoplanin C_trough between different gender and age groups were not performed due to the limited data, and will require investigation in lager patient cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical TDM can help monitor teicoplanin concentrations in order to maintain effective concentrations and thus ensure clinical efficacy. The trough concentrations of teicoplanin were mainly related to markers of renal function, especially eGFR and CL_cr, and were usually associated with lower PLT during therapy. These findings should be considered during the clinical application and dosage adjustment of teicoplanin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincerely thank all investigators for their participation and help.

REFERENCES

• Ahn BJ, Yim DS, Lee DG, Kwon JC, Kim SH, Choi SM. Teicoplanin dosing strategy for treatment of staphylococcus aureus in Korean patients with neutropenic fever. Yonsei Med J. 2011;52(4):616-23.
• Craig WA. Basic pharmacodynamics of antibacterials with clinical applications to the use of beta-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2003;17(3):479-501.
• Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16(1):31-41.
• Electronic Medicines Compendium. 2017. Targocid 200 mg-summary of product characteristics (SPC). https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2926/smpc2019; Accessed 25 August.
  » https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2926/smpc
• Foundation NK. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(Suppl 1):S1-266.
• Garner SF, Campbell K, Smith G, Hurd C, Davidson SJ, Treacy M, et al. Teicoplanin-dependent antibodies: detection and characterization. Br J Haematol. 2005;129(2):279-81.
• Hsiao SH, Chou CH, Lin WL, Lee EJ, Liao LH, Chang HJ, et al. High risk of cross-reactivity between vancomycin and sequential teicoplanin therapy. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(3):296-300.
• Kato H, Hamada Y, Hagihara M, Hirai J, Nishiyama N, Koizumi Y, et al. Retrospective Study of teicoplanin loading regimen that rapidly achieves target 15-30 μg/mL serum trough concentration. J Infect Chemother. 2016;22(5):308-13.
• Kroll H, Sun QH, Santoso S. Platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 (PECAM-1) is a target glycoprotein in drug-induced thrombocytopenia. Blood. 2000;96(4):1409-14.
• Li N, Zhu LQ, Xu GQ, Ge TY, Qi F, Li MX. Optimal teicoplanin dosage regimens for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in endocarditis patients and renal failure patients. J Chemother. 2017;29(6):358-64.
• Marcone GL, Binda E, Berini F, Marinelli F. Old and new glycopeptide antibiotics: from product to gene and back in the post-genomic era. Biotechnol Adv. 2018;36(2):534-54.
• Matsumoto K, Watanabe E, Kanazawa N, Fukamizu T, Shigemi A, Yokoyama Y, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of teicoplanin in patients with MRSA infections. Clin Pharmacol. 2016;8:15-8.
• Pea F, Brollo L, Viale P, Pavan F, Furlanut M. Teicoplanin therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill patients: a retrospective study emphasizing the importance of a loading dose. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(4):971-5.
• Ponce D, Zamoner W, Freitas FM, Balbi A, Awdishu L. Vancomycin removal during high-volume peritoneal dialysis in acute kidney injury patients: a prospective cohort clinical study. Kidney Int Rep. 2018;4(1):112-8.
• Ramos-Martín V, Johnson A, Mcentee L, Farrington N, Padmore K, Cojutti P, et al. Pharmacodynamics of teicoplanin against MRSA. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2017;72(12):3382-9.
• Roberts JA, Norris R, Paterson DL, Kwon JC, Kim SH, Choi SM. Therapeutic drug monitoring of antimicrobials. Br JClin Pharmacol . 2012;73(1):27-36.
• Sader HS, Mendes RE, Pfaller MA, Flamm RK. Antimicrobial activity of dalbavancin tested against Gram-positive organisms isolated from patients with infective endocarditis in US and European medical centres. J Antimicrob Chemother . 2019;74(5):1306-10.
• 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.
• Svetitsky S, Leibovici L, Paul M. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(10):4069-79.
• Tascini C, Flammini S, Leonildi A, Ciullo I, Tagliaferri E, Menichetti F. Comparison of teicoplanin and vancomycin in vitro activity on clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. J Chemother . 2012;24(4):187-90.
• Takechi K, Yanagawa H, Zamami Y, Ishizawa K, Tanaka A, Araki H. Evaluation of factors associated with the achievement of an optimal teicoplanin trough concentration. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;55(8):672-7.
• Ueda T, Takesue Y, Nakajima K, Ichki K, Wada Y, Tsuchida T, et al. Evaluation of teicoplanin dosing designs to achieve a new target trough concentration. J Infect Chemother . 2012;18(3):296-302.
• Wang T, Li N, Hu S, Xie J, Lei JE, Wang Y, et al. Factors on trough teicoplanin levels, associations between levels, efficacy and safety in patients with gram-positive infections. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;53(5):356-62.
• Wang JT, Wu HS, Weng CM, Hsu LY, Wang FD. Prognosis of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection treated with teicoplanin: a retrospective cohort study investigating effect of teicoplanin minimum inhibitory concentrations. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2013;13:182.
• Wood MJ. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother . 1996;37(2):209-22.
• Wood MJ. Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Chemother . 2000;12 (Suppl 5): 21-5.
• Yoon YK, Park DW, Sohn JW, Kim HY, Kim YS, Lee CS, et al. Multicenter prospective observational study of the comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . 2014;58(1):317-24.

FUNDING

• This work was supported by Liaoning Province Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 2020-BS-106).

ETHICAL APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

• 2
  The present study was approved by the First Hospital of China Medical University (approval no. [2020]244; Shenyang, China).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  14 Apr 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  11 Feb 2021
• Accepted
  08 June 2021