Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy1998
Comparison of strategies using cefpirome and ceftazidime for empiric treatment of pneumonia in intensive care patients. The Cefpirome Pneumonia Study Group.
Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia in the UK: report of the working party on hospital-acquired pneumonia of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2008Guideline
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized comparative study, adult patients in intensive care units were enrolled to receive cefpirome intravenously at 2 g twice daily or ceftazidime intravenously at 2 g three times daily for the empiric treatment of pneumonia. Randomization was performed after a double stratification according to the investigator's initial choice of monotherapy or combination therapy and then on the basis of the severity of disease. The primary endpoint was the clinical response at the end of treatment in the intent-to-treat population. Data for all patients were reviewed by a blinded observer. Of the 400 enrolled patients, 201 received cefpirome (monotherapy, 56%) and 199 received ceftazidime (monotherapy, 51%). Pneumonia was hospital acquired for 75% of the patients. Clinical failures rates were 34 versus 36% (odds ratio = 0.922; upper bound of 90% confidence interval = 1.301) in the intent-to-treat analysis for cefpirome and ceftazidime, respectively. For the cefpirome and ceftazidime groups, there were 35 versus 30% clinical failures among monotherapy-stratified patients, respectively, and 34 versus 42% clinical failures among combination therapy-stratified patients, respectively. The rates of clinical failures in the per-protocol analysis were 38 and 42%, respectively. In the population of patients evaluable for bacteriologic efficacy, eradication or presumed eradication was obtained for 71% (172 of 241) and 70% (162 of 230) of the pathogens isolated from the patients receiving cefpirome and ceftazidime, respectively. The mortality rates within 2 weeks after the end of treatment were similar (cefpirome group, 31%; ceftazidime group, 26%), as were the percentages of patients with at least one treatment-related adverse event (17 and 19%, respectively). An empiric treatment strategy with cefpirome at 2 g twice daily is equivalent in terms of efficacy and tolerance to ceftazidime at 2 g three times daily for the treatment of pneumonia in patients in intensive care units.
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.