ReviewInfectious diseases and therapy2021
Systematic Literature Review of Real-world Evidence of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for the Treatment of Respiratory Infections.
Review in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022Trial
- [New antimicrobial substances to combat increasing resistance].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Novel Antibiotics for Gram-Negative Nosocomial Pneumonia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Perspectives on the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a review of clinical trial data and real-world evidence.Future microbiology · 2024Review
- New antibiotics for Gram-negative pneumonia.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022Review
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
introductionGram-negative nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP), ventilated HABP (vHABP), and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Common pathogens, including Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, are prevalent in healthcare settings and have few effective treatment options due to high rates of antibacterial resistance. Resistant pathogens are associated with significantly worse outcomes, relative to patients with susceptible infections. Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) has established efficacy in clinical trials of patients with NP. This review aims to collate data on C/T use for HABP/vHABP/VABP infections in real-world clinical practice.
methodsThis systematic literature review searched online biomedical databases for real-world studies of C/T used to treat Gram-negative respiratory tract infections (RTIs) between January 2009 and June 2020.
resultsThirty-three studies comprising 658 patients were identified. Pneumonia was the most common infection treated with C/T (85%), with a smaller number of unspecified RTIs (9%) and tracheobronchitis (5%) reported. The majority of patients had respiratory infections caused by P. aeruginosa (92.8%), of which 88.1% were multidrug-resistant. Examination of these studies demonstrated an increase in the percentage of patients receiving the recommended dose of C/T for respiratory infections (3 g q8h or renal impairment-adjusted) over time (36.8% of patients in 2017 to 71.5% in 2020). Clinical success rates ranged from 51.4 to 100%, with 10 studies (55.6% of studies reporting clinical success) reporting clinical success rates of > 70%; microbiological success rates ranged from 57.0 to 100.0%, with three studies (60.0% of studies reporting microbiological success) reporting microbiological success rates of > 70%. Thirty-day mortality ranged from 0.0 to 33.0%, with nine studies (90% of studies reporting mortality) reporting 30-day mortality of < 30%.
conclusionsThe studies identified in this review demonstrate that C/T shows similar outcomes as those seen in clinical trials, despite the higher frequency of multidrug-resistant pathogens, and comorbidities that may have been excluded from the trials.
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.