ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Is less always more? Ceftazidime/avibactam alone or in combination to treat infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective observational multi-centre cohort study.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn vitro and in vivo studies suggest adding a second agent to ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) to enhance bactericidal activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). Nevertheless, evidence supporting this practice is scarce.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to 9 Italian hospitals with microbiologically confirmed PA infection and treated with CZA alone or in combination from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2021. The primary endpoint was 14-day clinical cure. Secondary endpoints were 28-day all-cause mortality, 56-day microbiological failure, 56-day infection relapse, and emergence of CZA resistance. A generalized linear model extended to the binomial family, with identity link, weighted for IPTW (inverse probability of treatment weighting), was fitted to compare the two groups for 14-day clinical cure. Results were reported in terms of risk difference (RD) and 90% Confidence Interval (90%CI).
resultsEighty-seven patients with infection due to PA were included; 17 were treated with CZA monotherapy, and 70 with combination therapy with CZA plus another anti-pseudomonal agent. Sequential organ failure assessment was significantly higher (median 6 [3-9]) in the combination group compared to monotherapy (median 3 [1-5]; p = 0.049). After weighting patients according to the IPTW, CZA monotherapy did not reach the clinical equipoise to combination therapy in terms of 14-day clinical cure (RD -0.28, 90% CI -0.41 to -0.14). No significant risk difference between groups was found for any of the secondary endpoints.
conclusionOur findings suggest that combination therapy with CZA for treating PA infections may provide some clinical benefit over monotherapy despite the absence of a definitive survival advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42446847What 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.