↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Effect and Safety of Meropenem–Vaborbactam versus Best-Available Therapy in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections: The TANGO II Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases and Therapy, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 868)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
322 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
Title
Effect and Safety of Meropenem–Vaborbactam versus Best-Available Therapy in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections: The TANGO II Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
Infectious Diseases and Therapy, October 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40121-018-0214-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard G. Wunderink, Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Galia Rahav, Amy J. Mathers, Matteo Bassetti, Jose Vazquez, Oliver A. Cornely, Joseph Solomkin, Tanaya Bhowmick, Jihad Bishara, George L. Daikos, Tim Felton, Maria Jose Lopez Furst, Eun Jeong Kwak, Francesco Menichetti, Ilana Oren, Elizabeth L. Alexander, David Griffith, Olga Lomovskaya, Jeffery Loutit, Shu Zhang, Michael N. Dudley, Keith S. Kaye

Abstract

Treatment options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are limited and CRE infections remain associated with high clinical failure and mortality rates, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. A Phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized controlled trial (TANGO II) was conducted from 2014 to 2017 to evaluate the efficacy/safety of meropenem-vaborbactam monotherapy versus best available therapy (BAT) for CRE. A total of 77 patients with confirmed/suspected CRE infection (bacteremia, hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, complicated urinary tract infection/acute pyelonephritis) were randomized, and 47 with confirmed CRE infection formed the primary analysis population (microbiologic-CRE-modified intent-to-treat, mCRE-MITT). Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to meropenem-vaborbactam (2 g/2 g over 3 h, q8h for 7-14 days) or BAT (mono/combination therapy with polymyxins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, tigecycline; or ceftazidime-avibactam alone). Efficacy endpoints included clinical cure, Day-28 all-cause mortality, microbiologic cure, and overall success (clinical cure + microbiologic eradication). Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory findings. Within the mCRE-MITT population, cure rates were 65.6% (21/32) and 33.3% (5/15) [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference, 3.3% to 61.3%; P = 0.03)] at End of Treatment and 59.4% (19/32) and 26.7% (4/15) (95% CI of difference, 4.6% to 60.8%; P = 0.02) at Test of Cure;.Day-28 all-cause mortality was 15.6% (5/32) and 33.3% (5/15) (95% CI of difference, - 44.7% to 9.3%) for meropenem-vaborbactam versus BAT, respectively. Treatment-related AEs and renal-related AEs were 24.0% (12/50) and 4.0% (2/50) for meropenem-vaborbactam versus 44.0% (11/25) and 24.0% (6/25) for BAT. Exploratory risk-benefit analyses of composite clinical failure or nephrotoxicity favored meropenem-vaborbactam versus BAT (31.3% [10/32] versus 80.0% [12/15]; 95% CI of difference, - 74.6% to - 22.9%; P < 0.001). Monotherapy with meropenem-vaborbactam for CRE infection was associated with increased clinical cure, decreased mortality, and reduced nephrotoxicity compared with BAT. NCT02168946. The Medicines Company.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 242 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 250 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 13%
Researcher 29 12%
Student > Master 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 92 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 30 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 103 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 275. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2024.
All research outputs
#132,643
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Diseases and Therapy
#9
of 868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,559
of 355,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Diseases and Therapy
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.