ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2015
β-Lactamase Characterization of Gram-Negative Pathogens Recovered from Patients Enrolled in the Phase 2 Trials for Ceftazidime-Avibactam: Clinical Efficacies Analyzed against Subsets of Molecularly Characterized Isolates.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Ceftazidime/Avibactam an Option for Serious Infections Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-ProducingAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020Pooled it
- Characterization of β-Lactamase Content of Ceftazidime-Resistant Pathogens Recovered during the Pathogen-Directed Phase 3 REPRISE Trial for Ceftazidime-Avibactam: Correlation of Efficacy against β-Lactamase Producers.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Trial
- Molecular β-Lactamase Characterization of Aerobic Gram-Negative Pathogens Recovered from Patients Enrolled in the Ceftazidime-Avibactam Phase 3 Trials for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections, with Efficacies Analyzed against Susceptible and Resistant Subsets.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Trial
- Antibiotic Treatment of Infections Caused by AmpC-Producing Enterobacterales.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Epidemiology of resistance of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae to ceftazidime-avibactam in a Chinese hospital.Journal of applied microbiology · 2022Article
- Molecular Characterization of BaselineAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Treatment of Bloodstream Infections Due to Gram-Negative Bacteria with Difficult-to-Treat Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Carbapenem-Sparing Strategies for ESBL Producers: When and How.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Application of Next-Generation Sequencing for Characterization of Surveillance and Clinical Trial Isolates: Analysis of the Distribution of β-lactamase Resistance Genes and Lineage Background in the United States.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Article
- Ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The correlation of the clinical efficacies of ceftazidime-avibactam and comparators (carbapenems) was evaluated against baseline Gram-negative isolates having characterized β-lactam resistance mechanisms from complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) phase 2 trials. Enterobacteriaceae displaying ceftriaxone and/or ceftazidime MICs of ≥ 2 μg/ml (69 isolates) and nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB [three isolates]) with ceftazidime MICs of ≥ 16 μg/ml were characterized for their narrow- and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) content. Enterobacteriaceae (one isolate) and NF-GNB (three isolates) with imipenem/meropenem MICs of ≥ 2 and ≥ 16 μg/ml, respectively, were tested for carbapenemases. All cUTI E. coli had the lineage background investigated (ST131-like versus non-ST131-like). The primary efficacy endpoint was microbiological response (eradication) at test of cure (TOC) for cUTI and clinical response (inferred microbiological eradication) at TOC for cIAI. A total of 34.1% of baseline cUTI (36.4%) and cIAI (33.1%) pathogens met the MIC-based screening criteria (screen positive). All screen-positive cUTI pathogens were CTX-M-producing E. coli, except for one E. cloacae isolate with AmpC overexpression. The majority (66.7%) of screen-positive cIAI isolates produced CTX-M-type coupled with a diverse array of other β-lactamases. Similar favorable responses were observed with ceftazidime-avibactam (93.3%) and carbapenems (90.9%), when a non-ESBL Enterobacteriaceae isolate was recovered at the baseline visit. When an ESBL Enterobacteriaceae isolate was present, the favorable responses were 85.7% and 80.0% with ceftazidime-avibactam and carbapenems, respectively. Higher favorable responses were observed with ceftazidime-avibactam (75.0%) than with carbapenems (66.7%) when an ST131-like E. coli isolate was recovered at baseline, as when a non-ST131-like isolate was present (93.8% versus 86.7%, respectively). The efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam was similar to that of carbapenems for treatment of cUTI and cIAI caused by ESBL organisms.
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.