SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021
Real-world use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a systematic literature review.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic literature review and (network) meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus aminoglycosides/polymyxins and ceftazidime/avibactam for treating adult patients with multidrug-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Pooled it
- Safety Profiles of Polymyxins, Aminoglycosides, and Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam (IMI/REL) in the Treatment of Gram-Negative Infections: A Literature Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility in ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales: Insights from the SMART Program 2020-2022 in China.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Comparison of early treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus polymyxin-based therapy of pneumonia due to MDRAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Observational
- Comparative evaluation of early treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus ceftazidime/avibactam for non-COVID-19 patients with pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Physicochemical Compatibility of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam with Parenteral Nutrition.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for the Treatment of Complicated Infections in Hospital Settings-A French Real-world Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Sepsis Stewardship: The Puzzle of Antibiotic Therapy in the Context of Individualization of Decision Making.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Perspectives on the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a review of clinical trial data and real-world evidence.Future microbiology · 2024Review
- Monoclonal antibodies against lipopolysaccharide protect againstFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Epidemiology, Mechanisms of Resistance and Treatment Algorithm for Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria: An Expert Panel Opinion.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Comparative Effectiveness of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam versus Aminoglycoside- or Polymyxin-Based Regimens in Multi-Drug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Therapeutic Strategies for Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Review
- Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Activity Against Drug-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Systematic Literature Review of Real-world Evidence of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for the Treatment of Respiratory Infections.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Review
- Complicated carbapenem-resistant infections: a treatment pathway analysis in Italian sites.Le infezioni in medicina · 2021Article
- Management of Multidrug Resistant Infections in Lung Transplant Recipients with Cystic Fibrosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.