Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25070105›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Relationship between ceftolozane-tazobactam exposure and selection for Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance in a hollow-fiber infection model.

Brian D VanScoy, Rodrigo E Mendes, Mariana Castanheira, Jennifer McCauley, Sujata M Bhavnani, Ronald N Jones, Lawrence V Friedrich, Judith N Steenbergen, Paul G Ambrose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Characterization ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pharmaceutics · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Continuous infusion of ceftolozane/tazobactam is associated with a higher probability of target attainment in patients infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

9 authors.

Brian D VanScoyInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Rodrigo E MendesJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA.
Mariana CastanheiraJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA.
Jennifer McCauleyInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Sujata M BhavnaniInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Ronald N JonesJMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa, USA.
Lawrence V FriedrichCubist Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA.
Judith N SteenbergenCubist Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA.
Paul G AmbroseInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom PAmbrose@ICPD.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is important to understand the relationship between antibiotic exposure and the selection of drug resistance in the context of therapy exposure. We sought to identify the ceftolozane-tazobactam exposure necessary to prevent the amplification of drug-resistant bacterial subpopulations in a hollow-fiber infection model. Two Pseudomonas aeruginosa challenge isolates were selected for study, a wild-type ATCC strain (ceftolozane-tazobactam MIC, 0.5 mg/liter) and a clinical isolate (ceftolozane-tazobactam MIC, 4 mg/liter). The experiment duration was 10 days, and the ceftolozane-tazobactam dose ratio (2:1) and dosing interval (every 8 h) were selected to approximate those expected to be used clinically. The studied ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens ranged from 62.5/31.25 to 2,000/1,000 mg per dose in step fold dilutions. Negative-control arms included no treatment and tazobactam at 500 mg every 8 h. Positive-control arms included ceftolozane at 1 g every 8 h and piperacillin-tazobactam dosed at 4.5 g every 6 h. For the wild-type ATCC strain, resistance was not selected by any ceftolozane-tazobactam regimen evaluated. For the clinical isolate, an inverted-U-shaped function best described the relationship between the amplification of a drug-resistant subpopulation and drug exposure. The least (62.5/31.25 mg) and most (2,000/1,000 mg) intensive ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens did not select for drug resistance. Drug resistance selection was observed with intermediately intensive dosing regimens (125/62.5 through 1,000/500 mg). For the intermediately intensive ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens, the duration until the selection for drug resistance increased with dose regimen intensity. These data support the selection of ceftolozane-tazobactam dosing regimens that minimize the potential for on-therapy drug resistance selection.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporinsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPenicillanic AcidPseudomonas aeruginosaTazobactamAnti-Bacterial AgentsceftolozaneCephalosporinsPenicillanic AcidTazobactam

Identifiers

PMID25070105
PMCPMC4187943

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.