ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
CSE-1034 versus Ceftriaxone: Efficacy and Safety Analysis from a Randomized, Open-labeled Phase III Study in Complicated Urinary Tract Infections.
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the clinical outcome, microbiological outcome and safety profile of CSE-1034, a novel combination of Ceftriaxone, Sulbactam and EDTA in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a randomized, controlled, open-labeled Phase-3 trial with the primary objective of assessing the efficacy and safety of CSE-1034 versus Ceftriaxone for the empirical treatment of cUTI. Adult cUTI patients were randomized to receive either intravenous dose of CSE-1034 or Ceftriaxone. The primary end point was composite cure rate (clinical response and bacterial eradication) in mMITT population at test of cure (TOC) visit. Secondary measures included verification of primary endpoint across other visits in different population sets, safety of patients and treatment duration.
resultsOverall, 204 patients were enrolled in the study and received one of the two treatments. At primary endpoint (TOC visit), the composite cure rate was much higher in CSE-1034 treatment arm compared to Ceftriaxone arm i.e. 97% (68/70) vs 83% (58/71) (treatment difference 12.6%; 95% CI: 5.9% to 26.4%). The adverse events (AEs) rates reported in two treatment arms were 21% in CSE-1034 and 36% in Ceftriaxone groups. Additionally, the treatment duration in CSE-1034 arm was significantly less (
conclusionsCSE-1034 3 g every 24 h showed a high favorable clinical and bacteriological response, and 95% CI around the treatment difference prove the superiority of CSE-1034 vs. Ceftriaxone for the treatment of cUTI. Therefore, CSE-1034 provides an effective alternative in the treatment of patients with cUTI.
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.