Table 3.

Key findings of pharmacokinetic studies—weight-based comparator

Study	Surgery type	Participants (N)	Control	Intervention		MIC	Measured tissue	Outcome	2-g dose sufficient?
Edmiston et al. 2004 [31]	Bariatric surgery (gastric bypass)	38 (17, 11 and 10)	BMI 40–49 kg/m2	BMI 50–59 kg/m2	BMI > 60 kg/m2	32 mcg/mL	Interstitial/plasma	Serum antimicrobial concentrations exceeded resistance breakpoint in 73%, 68% and 52% of BMI groups 40–49 kg/m2, 50–59 kg/m2 and > 60 kg/m2, respectively	No
Pevzner et al. 2011 [27]	Caesarean section	29 (10, 10 and 9)	BMI < 30 kg/m2	BMI 30–40 kg/m2	BMI > 40 kg/m2	1 mcg/g, 4 mcg/g	Adipose	20% and 44% of patients in obese and very obese categories, respectively, were not above a MIC of 4 mcg/g at wound closure At incision: -BMI < 30 kg/m2 vs 30–40 kg/m2: p = 0.009 -BMI < 30 kg/m2 vs > 40 kg/m2: p < 0.001 At closure: -BMI < 30 kg/m2 vs 30–40 kg/m2: p = 0.36 -BMI < 30 kg/m2 vs > 40 kg/m2: p = 0.07	No
Anlicoara et al. 2014 [29]	Bariatric surgery (sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass)	18	BMI < 40 kg/m2 2 g bolus + 1 g infusion cefazolin	BMI > 40 kg/m2 2 g bolus + 1 g infusion cefazolin		4 mcg/mL	Interstitial/plasma	Though patients in the lower weight category had higher cefazolin concentrations, all patients in both groups remained above MIC	Yes
Brill et al. 2014 [30]	Bariatric surgery (gastric bypass and Toupet fundoplication)	15 (8 and 7)	BMI 20–30 kg/m2	BMI > 40 kg/m2		4 mcg/mL	Interstitial/plasma	Monte Carlo simulations showed that probability of attaining MIC was significantly lower in patients with obesity	No
Groff et al. 2017 [28]	Caesarean section	8 (4 and 4)	BMI < 25 kg/m2	BMI > 30 kg/m2		1 mcg/mL, 2 mcg/mL, 17 mcg/mL	Interstitial/plasma	Both groups remained above MIC	Yes

summarises key information relating to pharmacokinetic studies that grouped patients by weight category, including doses, MIC targets named, tissue type that was sampled and conclusions drawn