Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23979759›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2013

In vitro activity of ceftaroline-avibactam against gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens isolated from patients in Canadian hospitals from 2010 to 2012: results from the CANWARD surveillance study.

James A Karlowsky, Heather J Adam, Melanie R Baxter, Philippe R S Lagacé-Wiens, Andrew J Walkty, Daryl J Hoban, George G Zhanel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
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 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pharmacokinetics of Penicillin G in Preterm and Term Neonates.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James A KarlowskyDiagnostic Services Manitoba.
Heather J Adam
Melanie R Baxter
Philippe R S Lagacé-Wiens
Andrew J Walkty
Daryl J Hoban
George G Zhanel
University of Manitoba · CADiagnostic Services Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The in vitro activities of ceftaroline-avibactam, ceftaroline, and comparative agents were determined for a collection of bacterial pathogens frequently isolated from patients seeking care at 15 Canadian hospitals from January 2010 to December 2012. In total, 9,758 isolates were tested by using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution method (document M07-A9, 2012), with MICs interpreted by using CLSI breakpoints (document M100-S23, 2013). Ceftaroline-avibactam demonstrated potent activity (MIC90, ≤ 0.5 μg/ml) against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Proteus mirabilis, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Serratia marcescens, Morganella morganii, Citrobacter freundii, and Haemophilus influenzae; >99% of isolates of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, K. oxytoca, P. mirabilis, M. morganii, C. freundii, and H. influenzae were susceptible to ceftaroline-avibactam according to CLSI MIC interpretative criteria for ceftaroline. Ceftaroline was less active than ceftaroline-avibactam against all species of Enterobacteriaceae tested, with rates of susceptibility ranging from 93.9% (P. mirabilis) to 54.0% (S. marcescens). All isolates of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MIC90, 0.25 μg/ml) and 99.6% of methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolates (MIC90, 1 μg/ml) were susceptible to ceftaroline; the addition of avibactam to ceftaroline did not alter its activity against staphylococci or streptococci. All isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae (MIC90, 0.03 μg/ml), Streptococcus pyogenes (MIC90, ≤ 0.03 μg/ml), and Streptococcus agalactiae (MIC90, 0.015 μg/ml) tested were susceptible to ceftaroline. We conclude that combining avibactam with ceftaroline expanded its spectrum of activity to include most isolates of Enterobacteriaceae resistant to third-generation cephalosporins, including extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing E. coli and ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae, while maintaining potent activity against staphylococci and streptococci.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAzabicyclo CompoundsCanadaCeftarolineCephalosporinsCross InfectionDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialDrug SynergismDrug Therapy, CombinationGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsGram-Positive BacteriaGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPublic Health SurveillanceAnti-Bacterial AgentsavibactamAzabicyclo CompoundsCeftarolineCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID23979759
PMCPMC3811279
OpenAlexW2107242109

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.