ArticleAnnals of intensive care2023
Outcomes in participants with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia and organ failure treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem: a subset analysis of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ASPECT-NP trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02070757 (A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Compared With Meropenem in Adult Patients With Ventilated Nosocomial Pneumonia), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Compared With Meropenem in Adult Patients With Ventilated Nosocomial Pneumonia
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics, Infection Profiles, and Hospital Outcomes of Intensive Care Unit Patients Undergoing Antimicrobial Therapy with Ceftolozane/Tazobactam: A Multicentric Retrospective Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for Complex and Resistant Infections: Systematic Reviews of Comparative Efficacy Studies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Individual target pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic attainment rates among cefepime-treated patients admitted to the ICU with hospital-acquired pneumonia with and without ECMO.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations: a systematic review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
- Towards a holistic approach to pulmonary infections. Insights from the Sixth Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2024.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Review
- Perspectives on the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam: a review of clinical trial data and real-world evidence.Future microbiology · 2024Review
- Individual meropenem epithelial lining fluid and plasma PK/PD target attainment.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2023Article
- [Antibiotic treatment of community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2023Review
- Nosocomial and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia.Open respiratory archivesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pivotal ASPECT-NP trial showed ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we evaluated treatment outcomes by degree of respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction.
methodsThis was a subset analysis of data from ASPECT-NP, a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). Adults with vHABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam or 1 g meropenem every 8 h for 8-14 days. Outcomes in participants with a baseline respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (R-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of severe respiratory failure), cardiovascular component of the SOFA score (CV-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of shock), or R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 were compared by treatment arm. The efficacy endpoint of primary interest was 28-day all-cause mortality. Clinical response, time to death, and microbiologic response were also evaluated.
resultsThere were 726 participants in the intention-to-treat population; 633 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 (312 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 321 meropenem), 183 with CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (84 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 99 meropenem), and 160 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (69 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 91 meropenem). Baseline characteristics, including causative pathogens, were generally similar in participants with R-SOFA ≥ 2 or CV-SOFA ≥ 2 across treatment arms. The 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% and 24.0% [difference: 0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.4, 6.9] for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 33.3% and 30.3% (difference: - 3.0%, 95% CI - 16.4, 10.3) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 34.8% and 30.8% (difference: - 4.0%, 95% CI - 18.6, 10.3), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Clinical cure rates were as follows: 55.8% and 54.2% (difference: 1.6%, 95% CI - 6.2, 9.3) for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 53.6% and 55.6% (difference: - 2.0%, 95% CI - 16.1, 12.2) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 53.6% and 56.0% (difference: - 2.4%, 95% CI - 17.6, 12.8), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Time to death was comparable in all SOFA groups across both treatment arms. A higher rate of microbiologic eradication/presumed eradication was observed for CV-SOFA ≥ 2 and R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 with ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem.
conclusionsThe presence of severe respiratory failure or shock did not affect the relative efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem; either agent may be used to treat critically ill patients with vHABP/VABP.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757. Registered 25 February 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.
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.