ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli sepsis according to infection site.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy, microbiologic clearance, and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) in treating sepsis caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CRO), with a focus on subgroup analyses by infection site.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 156 patients with CRO sepsis treated between January 2020 and January 2026. Patients were divided into an observation group (CAZ-AVI, n=74) and a control group (conventional antimicrobials, n=82). Clinical outcomes, microbiological clearance rates, 28-day mortality, and adverse events were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with microbial clearance and 28-day mortality.
resultsThe clinical effective rate was significantly higher in the observation group (74.32% vs. 48.78%, P=0.001), as was the microbiological clearance rate (74.32% vs. 51.22%, P=0.003). ICU and total hospital stays were significantly shorter in the observation group (both P < 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed favorable outcomes for both pulmonary and urinary tract infections, with the urinary tract subgroup achieving 84.62% clinical efficacy. The intra-abdominal infection subgroup was not included in subgroup analysis due to an extremely small sample size. CAZ-AVI treatment was independently associated with microbial clearance (OR=3.74, 95% CI: 1.69-8.27, P=0.001). No significant difference in adverse events was observed between groups.
conclusionCAZ-AVI demonstrated superior clinical efficacy and microbiological clearance compared to conventional antimicrobials in treating CRO sepsis, particularly in urinary tract infections, with favorable safety profiles. These findings support CAZ-AVI as a preferred therapeutic option and highlight the importance of infection site-guided antimicrobial strategies.
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.