Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25223999›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

In vivo efficacy of humanized exposures of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in comparison with Ceftazidime against contemporary Enterobacteriaceae isolates.

Shawn H MacVane, Jared L Crandon, Wright W Nichols, David P Nicolau

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
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 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Polymyxins retainAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Ongoing Challenge with NDM-HarboringAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shawn H MacVaneCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.
Jared L CrandonCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.
Wright W NicholsAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.
David P NicolauCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA Division of Infectious Diseases, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA david.nicolau@hhchealth.org.
Hartford Financial Services (United States)AstraZeneca (United States) · USHartford Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ceftazidime-avibactam is a β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor combination under investigation for the treatment of serious Gram-negative infections. When combined with avibactam, a novel non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor, ceftazidime has activity against isolates that produce Ambler class A, class C, and some class D β-lactamases. However, little is known of the in vivo efficacy of the combination against these targeted ceftazidime- and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Using humanized exposures in the murine thigh model, we evaluated the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam against Enterobacteriaceae exhibiting MICs of ≥8 μg/ml to aid in the assignment of interpretive susceptibility criteria. Eighteen clinical Enterobacteriaceae isolates, including nine carbapenem-resistant strains, were evaluated against ceftazidime-avibactam (2,000 mg/500 mg) as a 2-h infusion every 8 h. To highlight the impact of avibactam, 13 select isolates were tested in the neutropenic model against a humanized regimen of 2,000 mg ceftazidime every 8 h (2-h infusion). Additionally, nine isolates were evaluated in immunocompetent animals. The efficacy was evaluated as the change in log10 CFU compared with that of 0-h controls after 24 h. The vast majority (17/18, 94%) of the isolates were resistant to ceftazidime alone. The ceftazidime monotherapy failed to have activity against 10 of 13 isolates, while ceftazidime-avibactam produced reductions in bacterial density against 16 of 18 isolates. Ceftazidime-avibactam (2,000 mg/500 mg) every 8 h (2-h infusion) displayed dependable activity against the Enterobacteriaceae isolates, exhibiting MICs of ≤16 μg/ml (free drug concentration above the MIC [fT>MIC] of ≥62%) and variable activity was noted at an MIC of 32 μg/ml (fT>MIC of 34%). The presence of a functioning immune system enhanced the efficacy for both regimens against all tested isolates. These data support further examination of the use of ceftazidime-avibactam as an effective therapy against infections due to Gram-negative infections, including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAzabicyclo Compoundsbeta-Lactamase InhibitorsCeftazidimeDrug CombinationsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEnterobacteriaceaeEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsFemaleMiceMice, Inbred ICRMicrobial Sensitivity TestsNeutropeniaPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas InfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agentsavibactam, ceftazidime drug combinationAzabicyclo Compoundsbeta-Lactamase InhibitorsCeftazidimeDrug Combinations

Identifiers

PMID25223999
PMCPMC4249385
OpenAlexW2114554564

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.