SynthesisClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2026
Comparison of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam and Ceftazidime-Avibactam in the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant/Difficult-to-Treat Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intrapulmonary penetration of ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized pharmacokinetic trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Stewardship Challenges, PK/PD Evidence, and Prescribing Appropriateness for Recently Approved Antibiotics in Pediatric Practice.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam are considered first-line treatment for multidrug-resistant (MDR) and/or difficult-to-treat resistant (DTR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Conflicting results in terms of clinical outcome and resistance development emerged from real-world comparative studies. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of MDR/DTR P. aeruginosa infections.
methodsTwo authors independently searched PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to 18 November 2025 to retrieve studies comparing ceftolozane-tazobactam versus ceftazidime-avibactam in the management of MDR/DTR P. aeruginosa infections. Clinical cure was set as the primary outcome, whereas 90-day resistance development, microbiological failure, and the 30-day mortality rate were set as the secondary outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling the odds ratios (ORs) retrieved from studies providing adjustment for confounders by means of a random-effects model with the inverse variance method. The risk of bias in the included studies was independently assessed using the RoB 2.0 and the ROBINS-I tools.
resultsAmong a total of 1193 articles screened, 6 observational studies were retrieved and included (n = 1161; 644 receiving ceftolozane-tazobactam vs 517 receiving ceftazidime-avibactam). Ceftolozane-tazobactam showed a higher clinical cure rate than ceftazidime-avibactam (n = 4; OR, 1.82 [95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.99]; I2 = 25.3%). No difference emerged in terms of microbiological failure (n = 2; OR, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, .36-1.19]; I2 = 21.9%), 90-day resistance development (n = 3; OR, 1.11 [.51-2.42]; I2 = 50.0%), or 30-day mortality rate (n = 4; OR, 1.00 [.89-1.12]; I2 = 0.0%).
conclusionsOur meta-analysis showed that, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, ceftolozane-tazobactam could grant a higher clinical cure rate than ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of MDR/DTR P. aeruginosa infections.
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.