Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23274659›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2013

In vivo activities of ceftolozane, a new cephalosporin, with and without tazobactam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae, including strains with extended-spectrum β-lactamases, in the thighs of neutropenic mice.

W A Craig, D R Andes

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Age of Antibiotic Resistance in MDR/XDR Clinical Pathogen ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Clinical Distribution and Drug Resistance ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Article
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

W A CraigDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin and William S Middleton VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. wac@medicine.wisc.edu
D R Andes
William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ceftolozane is a new cephalosporin with potent activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae. A neutropenic murine thigh infection model was used to determine which pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic index and magnitude drives the efficacy of ceftolozane with Gram-negative bacilli, to compare the rates of in vivo killing of P. aeruginosa by ceftolozane and ceftazidime, and to determine the impact of different ratios of ceftolozane plus tazobactam on Enterobacteriaceae containing extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs). Neutropenic mice had 10(6.2-7.1) CFU/thigh when treated with ceftolozane for 24 h with (i) various doses (3.12 to 1,600 mg/kg) and dosage intervals (3, 6, 12, and 24 h) against two Enterobacteriaceae strains, (ii) 0.39 to 800 mg/kg every 6 h for four Enterobacteriaceae and four P. aeruginosa strains, and (iii) 400 or 800 mg/kg with 2:1. 4:1, and 8:1 ratios of tazobactam against five Enterobacteriaceae strains with ESBLs. The pharmacokinetics of ceftolozane at 25, 100, and 400 mg/kg were linear with peak/dose values of 1.0 to 1.4 and half-lives of 12 to 14 min. T>MIC was the primary index driving efficacy. For stasis (1 log kill), T>MIC was 26.3% ± 2.1% (31.6% ± 1.6%) for wild-type Enterobacteriaceae, 31.1% ± 4.9% (34.8% ± 4.4%) for Enterobacteriaceae with ESBLs, and 24.0% ± 3.3% (31.5% ± 3.9%) for P. aeruginosa. At 200 mg/kg every 3 h, the rate of in vivo killing of P. aeruginosa was faster with ceftolozane than with ceftazidime (-0.34 to -0.41 log10 CFU/thigh/h versus -0.21 to -0.24 log10 CFU/thigh/h). The 2:1 ratio of ceftolozane with tazobactam was the most potent combination studied. The T>MIC required for ceftolozane is less than with other cephalosporins and may be due to more rapid killing.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamasesCephalosporinsEnterobacteriaceaeFemaleMiceMice, Inbred ICRMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPenicillanic AcidPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas InfectionsTazobactamThighAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamasesCephalosporinsPenicillanic AcidTazobactam

Identifiers

PMID23274659
PMCPMC3623364
OpenAlexW2146291304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.