Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35848936›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2022

In vivo translational assessment of the GES genotype on the killing profile of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam and meropenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Christian M Gill, Antonio Oliver, Pablo Arturo Fraile-Ribot, David P Nicolau

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Dose optimization of piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and ceftazidime for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Türkiye.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Mechanisms leading toAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian M GillCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Antonio OliverServicio de Microbiología and Unidad de Investigación, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Illes Balears (IdISBa), CIBERINFEC, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Pablo Arturo Fraile-RibotServicio de Microbiología and Unidad de Investigación, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Illes Balears (IdISBa), CIBERINFEC, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
David P NicolauCenter for Anti-Infective Research and Development, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Hartford Hospital · USHealth Research Institute of the Balearic Islands · ES

Funding

Center for Anti-Infective Research and Development
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the in vivo killing profile of human-simulated exposures of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam and meropenem against GES-harbouring Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the murine thigh infection model.

methodsFive P. aeruginosa isolates [three isogenic (GES-1, GES-5 and GES-15) and two clinical (GES-5 and GES-15)] were evaluated. MICs were determined using broth microdilution. Human-simulated regimens (HSRs) of ceftazidime 2 g IV q8h as a 2 h infusion, ceftazidime/avibactam 2.5 g IV q8h as a 2 h infusion and meropenem 2 g IV q8h as a 3 h infusion were administered. Change in bacterial burden relative to baseline was assessed.

resultsModal MICs ranged from 8 to >64 mg/L for ceftazidime, from 1 to 16 mg/L for ceftazidime/avibactam and from 1 to >64 mg/L for meropenem. In vivo, for the isogenic strains, avibactam augmented ceftazidime activity against the GES-1- and GES-15-harbouring isolates. Both ceftazidime and ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in significant kill against the GES-5 isogenic isolate. The meropenem HSR produced >1 log10 kill against each isogenic isolate (MICs of 1-4 mg/L). Against the GES-5 clinical isolate, ceftazidime and ceftazidime/avibactam resulted in >1 log10 kill compared with bacterial growth with the meropenem HSR. In the clinical isolate harbouring GES-15, the elevated MICs of ceftazidime and ceftazidime/avibactam reduced the effectiveness of both compounds, while the observed reduction in meropenem MIC translated into in vivo efficacy of the HSR regimen, predictive of clinical efficacy.

conclusionsIn GES-harbouring P. aeruginosa, quantitative reductions in bacterial density observed with the translational murine model suggest that the phenotypic profile of ceftazidime, ceftazidime/avibactam and meropenem is predictive of clinical efficacy when using the evaluated dosing regimens.

Indexed as

CeftazidimePseudomonas aeruginosaAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAzabicyclo CompoundsDrug CombinationsGenotypeHumansMeropenemMiceMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsavibactamAzabicyclo CompoundsCeftazidimeDrug CombinationsMeropenem

Identifiers

PMID35848936
PMCPMC9525071
OpenAlexW4285733344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.