Next Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Potential of Curcumin: Therapeutic Potential and Challenges to Clinical Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Control of Early Blight Fungus (Alternaria alternata) in Tomato by Boric and Phenylboronic Acid
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antimicrobial Potential of the Genera Geobacillus and Parageobacillus, as Well as Endolysins Biosynthesized by Their Bacteriophages
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/antibiotics11030321
Review Report
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Ceftazidime–Avibactam for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens: A Retrospective, Single Center Study

Antibiotics 2022, 11(3), 321; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030321
by Maria Di Pietrantonio 1, Lucia Brescini 1,2,*, Jennifer Candi 3, Morroni Gianluca 2, Francesco Pallotta 1,3, Sara Mazzanti 1,2, Paolo Mantini 1,3, Bianca Candelaresi 1,3, Silvia Olivieri 1,3, Francesco Ginevri 1,3, Giulia Cesaretti 1,3, Sefora Castelletti 4, Emanuele Cocci 5, Rosaria G. Polo 5, Elisabetta Cerutti 6, Oriana Simonetti 7, Oscar Cirioni 1,2, Marcello Tavio 4, Andrea Giacometti 1,2 and Francesco Barchiesi 2,8
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Payam Behzadi
Antibiotics 2022, 11(3), 321; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030321
Submission received: 2 February 2022 / Revised: 17 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 28 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evaluation of New Molecules in Severe Infectious Diseases)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors performed a retrospective study to determine the efficacy of Ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) treatment against gram-negative bacterial infections in patients. This observational study was performed on data gathered from 81 patients from a single center. These small sample size and single center analysis are limitations of the study, which the authors acknowledge. Overall, the analysis and conclusions presented by the authors are sound and scientifically the manuscript is fine. However, the general writing structure of the manuscript make it difficult to follow and read. In my opinion, I think the manuscript requires some restructuring and better explanations in some sections which would make it more impactful. Some specific and general comments are listed below, which should be rectified throughout the manuscript. I recommend the manuscript be accepted after the general comments are addressed.

 

General Comments

  1. Lines 39-64: The introduction section requires some restructuring. There are too many one sentence paragraphs, which doesn’t flow very well and seems like a bunch of bullet points put together. Since this study looks at CZA usage, a bit more in depth information about CZA in the introduction seems warranted.
  2. Line 73: Please correct ‘was’ to ‘were.’
  3. Lines 80-83: ‘CZA was prescribed….in 54%.’ Please correct the sentence structure and simplify the explanation.
  4. Lines 86-87: ‘Empirical treatment….other pathogens.’ The two parts of the sentence do not give complementary information. Please clarify this sentence.
  5. Lines 89-90: Please remove one sentence paragraph here and throughout the manuscript.
  6. Figure 1 is poorly explained. Moreover, the figure legend is poorly written.
  7. Line 100: Please correct ‘survival’ to ‘surviving.’
  8. Line 135: Please correct ’from to 53% at 71%’ to ’53% to 71%.’
  9. Line 139-140: “K. pneumoniae….1% of these.’ Please correct sentence structure.
  10. The methods section requires some restructuring and better explanation. Please see comment 1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you very much for your manuscript submission. Indeed, your work is well-designed and represents invaluable data. However, some revisions are needed.

  1. There are many typos and grammatical errors e.g.: Gram-negative/Gram-positive not gram-negative/gram-positive
  2. Please use more graphs in your manuscript. The manuscript is compacted by a mass of numbers and percentages. The use of more graphs softens the manuscript for the readers.
  3. I recommend two papers which supports your manuscript to have fruitful Introduction and Discussion sections. Please read and add the following papers to the References sections of your manuscript.

    Antimicrobial Agents and Urinary Tract Infections. Curr Pharm Des. 2019;25(12):1409-1423. doi: 10.2174/1381612825999190619130216. PMID: 31218955.

    Metallo-ß-lactamases: a review. Mol Biol Rep. 2020 Aug;47(8):6281-6294. doi: 10.1007/s11033-020-05651-9. Epub 2020 Jul 11. PMID: 32654052.
  4.  In Methods section you have mentioned:
    "dentification of species was performed with MALDITOF mass spectrometry", please give a reference. Why did you choose this method. Please add the related figure to your manuscript.
    "Detection of KPC was assessed with Genexpert".
    Please add the related figure to your manuscript.
    " Antibiotic MICs were determined by the reference broth microdilution method and results were interpreted according to the EUCAST definition". Please add the year and the version of applied EUCAST within the text.
    "Ceftazidime-avibactam susceptibility was determined with Etest MIC Test Strip". Please add the related figure to your manuscript.
  5. Please interpret the statistical calculations in details in Discussion section.
  6. I recommend you to add a flow chart or schematic figure to your manuscript to show the recruited procedures at one glance to the readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept

Back to TopTop