Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33832545›Full record

SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

Real-world use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a systematic literature review.

Laura Puzniak, Ryan Dillon, Thomas Palmer, Hannah Collings, Ashley Enstone

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Monoclonal antibodies against lipopolysaccharide protect againstFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Activity Against Drug-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura PuzniakMerck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ, 07033, USA. laura.puzniak@merck.com.
Ryan DillonMerck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ, 07033, USA.
Thomas PalmerAdelphi Values PROVE, Adelphi Mill, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.
Hannah CollingsAdelphi Values PROVE, Adelphi Mill, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.
Ashley EnstoneAdelphi Values PROVE, Adelphi Mill, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.
Adelphi Group (United Kingdom) · GBMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibacterial-resistant gram-negative infections are a serious risk to global public health. Resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are highly prevalent, particularly in healthcare settings, and there are limited effective treatment options. Patients with infections caused by resistant pathogens have considerably worse outcomes, and incur significantly higher costs, relative to patients with susceptible infections. Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) has established efficacy in clinical trials. This review aimed to collate data on C/T use in clinical practice.

methodsThis systematic literature review searched online biomedical databases for real-world studies of C/T for gram-negative infections up to June 2020. Relevant study, patient, and treatment characteristics, microbiology, and efficacy outcomes were captured.

resultsThere were 83 studies comprising 3,701 patients were identified. The most common infections were respiratory infections (52.9% of reported infections), urinary tract infections (UTIs; 14.9%), and intra-abdominal infections (IAIs; 10.1%). Most patients included were seriously ill and had multiple comorbidities. The majority of patients had infections caused by P. aeruginosa (90.7%), of which 86.0% were antimicrobial-resistant. C/T was used as both a 1.5 g q8h and 3 g q8h dose, for a median duration of 7-56 days (varying between studies). Outcome rates were comparable between studies: clinical success rates ranged from 45.7 to 100.0%, with 27 studies (69%) reporting clinical success rates of > 70%; microbiological success rates ranged from 31 to 100%, with 14 studies (74%) reporting microbiological success rates of > 70%. Mortality rates ranged from 0 to 50%, with 31 studies (69%) reporting mortality rates of ≤ 20%. In comparative studies, C/T was as effective as aminoglycoside- or polymyxin-based regimens, and in some instances, significantly more effective.

conclusionsThe studies identified in this review demonstrate that C/T is effective in clinical practice, despite the diverse group of seriously ill patients, different levels of resistance of the pathogens treated, and varying dosing regimens used. Furthermore, comparative studies suggest that C/T offers a successful alternative to standard of care (SoC).

Indexed as

CephalosporinsComorbidityCritical IllnessDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansIntraabdominal InfectionsPseudomonas InfectionsRespiratory Tract InfectionsTazobactamUrinary Tract Infectionsceftolozane, tazobactam drug combinationCephalosporinsTazobactamAntibacterial resistanceCeftolozane/tazobactamPseudomonas aeruginosaReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID33832545
PMCPMC8027296
OpenAlexW3119669472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.