ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Effectiveness and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam versus polymyxin B in liver transplant recipients with carbapenem-resistant organism infections: a real-world cohort study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Colistin-Based Regimens for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Bloodstream Infections: A Six-Year Retrospective Cohort and 30-Day Mortality Analysis.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Newer antibiotics for drug-resistant Gram-negative infections in immunocompromised hosts: from pivotal trials to high-risk practice.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment options for carbapenem-resistant organism (CRO) infections remain limited, with ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ/AVI) and polymyxin B (PMB) being the main therapeutic choices. However, comparative evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of liver transplant (LT) recipients is scarce. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in the liver intensive care unit of Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital from January 2018 to December 2024. Adult LT recipients with CRO infections who received intravenous CAZ/AVI or PMB for > 48 h were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed at a 1:1 ratio to balance baseline variables. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate microbial clearance, clinical success, and acute kidney injury (AKI). Cox proportional hazards models assessed the 90-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with survival outcomes. Results: Among the 106 LT recipients with postoperative CRO infections, 45 received CAZ/AVI (n = 23) or PMB (n = 22). After PSM, 22 patients were included in each group. The rates of microbial clearance (59.1% vs. 63.6%), clinical success (54.6% vs. 54.6%), and 90-day all-cause mortality (22.7% vs. 27.3%) were comparable between the CAZ/AVI and PMB ( Conclusion: CAZ/AVI and PMB achieved similar clinical effectiveness and survival outcomes in LT recipients with CRO infections; however, PMB carries a higher risk of nephrotoxicity. Discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy during infection significantly affects patient survival. These findings highlight the importance of individualised antimicrobial selection, renal safety monitoring, and pharmacist-led stewardship in managing CRO infections in liver transplant patients.
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.