ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2010
In vivo activity of ceftobiprole in murine skin infections due to Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phase 3 randomized double-blind comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2014Trial
- Possible clinical indications of ceftobiprole.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2019Review
- Combination prophylactic therapy with rifampin increases efficacy against an experimental Staphylococcus epidermidis subcutaneous implant-related infection.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2014Article
- Efficacy of ceftobiprole Medocaril against Enterococcus faecalis in a murine urinary tract infection model.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Article
- Efficacy of a new fluoroquinolone, JNJ-Q2, in murine models of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae skin, respiratory, and systemic infections.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2011Article
- Diabetic foot infections: microbiological aspects, current and future antibiotic therapy focusing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.International wound journal · 2011Review
- Resistance and the management of complicated skin and skin structure infections: the role of ceftobiprole.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2010Article
- Nitric oxide nanoparticles: pre-clinical utility as a therapeutic for intramuscular abscesses.VirulenceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ceftobiprole, a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (P. Hebeisen et al., Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:825-836, 2001), was evaluated in a subcutaneous skin infection model with Staphylococcus aureus Smith OC 4172 (methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]), S. aureus OC 8525 (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa OC 4351 (having an inducible AmpC beta-lactamase), and P. aeruginosa OC 4354 (overproducing AmpC beta-lactamase). In the MSSA and MRSA infection models, ceftobiprole, administered as the prodrug ceftobiprole medocaril, was more effective in reducing CFU/g skin (P < 0.001) than were cefazolin, vancomycin, or linezolid based on the dose-response profiles. Skin lesion volumes in MSSA-infected animals treated with ceftobiprole were 19 to 29% lower than those for cefazolin-, vancomycin-, or linezolid-treated animals (P < 0.001). In MRSA infections, lesion size in ceftobiprole-treated mice was 34% less than that with cefazolin or linezolid treatment (P < 0.001). Against P. aeruginosa, ceftobiprole at similar doses was as effective as meropenem-cilastatin in reductions of CFU/g skin, despite 8- and 32-fold-lower MICs for meropenem; both treatments were more effective than was cefepime (P < 0.001) against the inducible and overproducing AmpC beta-lactamase strains of P. aeruginosa. Ceftobiprole was similar to meropenem-cilastatin and 47 to 54% more effective than cefepime (P < 0.01) in reducing the size of the lesion caused by either strain of P. aeruginosa in this study. These studies indicate that ceftobiprole is effective in reducing both bacterial load and lesion volume associated with infections due to MSSA, MRSA, and P. aeruginosa in this murine model of skin and soft tissue infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.