Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40381177›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025

Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ceftazidime-Avibactam versus Polymyxin B in the Treatment of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections: A Target Trial Emulation.

Na Hu, Fengjiao Xiao, Yechao Chen, Qiaoling Gu, Pei Liang, Yin Xu, Jinchun Liu, Yunxing Liu, Yi-Chen Li, Yinqiu Xu and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Real-world effectiveness and treatment costs of ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin-meropenem for ICU-acquired MDR gram-negative infections in liver transplant recipients.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Na Hu *Department of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Fengjiao Xiao *Department of Pharmacy, Anyang Tumor Hospital, The Affiliated Anyang Tumor Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, North Huanbin Road1, Anyang, 455000, China.
Yechao Chen *Department of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, School of Basic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Qiaoling Gu *Department of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, School of Basic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Pei LiangDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Yin XuIntensive Care Unit, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Jinchun LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Yunxing LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Yi-Chen LiDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Yinqiu XuDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Mengyin LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China.
Dayu ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China. cdy_pharmacy@njglyy.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6947-1869
Haixia ZhangDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, China. zhx_510@hotmail.com.

Funding

Jiangsu Pharmaceutical Association Aosaikang Hospital Pharmacy Funding A202212
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTreatment options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are limited, with polymyxin B (PMB) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) being among the available choices. However, research on these options is scarce and significantly heterogeneous. This study aims to analyze the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of PMB and CZA within a standardized target trial emulation (TTE) framework.

methodsThis retrospective study emulated a target trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of CZA versus PMB for treating CRE infections. Conducted at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, this study included adult patients treated with CZA or PMB from July 2020 to December 2022. Data on demographics, treatment outcomes, and costs were collected. The primary outcomes included clinical cure, incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed 28-day all-cause mortality, microbiological eradication rates, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and gastrointestinal events. The outcomes were assessed using the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) effects, per-protocol effects, and propensity score overlap weighting (PSOW) methods.

resultsBetween July 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, 492 hospitalized patients treated with CZA or PMB were screened at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 176 patients were included in the mITT analysis, and 153 in the per-protocol analysis. The clinical cure rate was significantly higher in the CZA group compared to the PMB group across all analyses. The 28-day mortality was similar between groups, while the microbial eradication rate was significantly higher in the CZA group compared to the PMB group across all analyses. The incidence of ADRs was consistent between groups, but AKI occurred more frequently in PMB patients, while gastrointestinal events were more common in the CZA group. The CZA strategy demonstrated a 28.1% increase in efficacy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 71,651.76 yuan. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that CZA has a higher clinical cure rate compared to PMB within a standard TTE framework. However, the overall incidence of ADRs was similar between the two treatments. Pharmacoeconomic analysis also indicated that CZA is cost-effective.

trial registrationhttps://www.chictr.org.cn ; identifier, ChiCTR2300067946.

Indexed as

Carbapenem-resistant EnterobacteriaceaeCeftazidime-avibactamCost-effectivenessPolymyxin BTarget trial emulation

Identifiers

PMID40381177
PMCPMC12271043

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.