ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2022
Outcomes with Cefiderocol Treatment in Patients with Bacteraemia Enrolled into Prospective Phase 2 and Phase 3 Randomised Clinical Studies.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 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.
A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Clinical Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous S-649266 in Complicated Urinary Tract Infections With or Without Pyelonephritis or Acute Uncomplicated Pyelonephritis Caused by Gram-Negative Pathogens in Hospitalized Adults in Comparison With Intravenous Imipenem/Cilastatin
A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label Clinical Study of S-649266 or Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Severe Infections Caused by Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative Pathogens
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Clinical Study of S-649266 Compared With Meropenem for the Treatment of Hospital-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia, Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia, or Healthcare-associated Bacterial Pneumonia Caused by Gram-negative Pathogens
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-resistantClinical microbiology reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Real-world effectiveness and safety of cefiderocol in critically ill patients with MDR Gram-negative infections: Results from a retrospective study.Biomedical reports · 2025Article
- Carbapenem-ResistantOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Treatment of critically ill patients with cefiderocol for infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens: review of the evidence.Annals of intensive care · 2023Review
- Bloodstream Infection and Gram-Negative Resistance: The Role for Newer Antibiotics.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cefiderocol, a Siderophore Cephalosporin, as a Treatment Option for Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2023Review
- Intravenous Fosfomycin: A Potential Good Partner for Cefiderocol. Clinical Experience and Considerations.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evidence for Efficacy of Cefiderocol against OXA-48-Containing Isolates from the APEKS-NP and CREDIBLE-CR Trials.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022Article
- In vitro Activity of Cefiderocol and Comparators against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens from France and Belgium.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Empiric treatment of patients with sepsis and septic shock and place in therapy of cefiderocol: a systematic review and expert opinion statement.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2022Review
- New Drugs for the Treatment ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA post hoc, descriptive analysis of three prospective, randomised, controlled clinical studies investigating cefiderocol in gram-negative bacterial infections was conducted to assess its efficacy in patients with baseline bacteraemia.
methodsData from APEKS-cUTI (NCT02321800), APEKS-NP (NCT03032380) and CREDIBLE-CR (NCT02714595) studies were assessed individually. Patients received cefiderocol 2g, q8h, for 7-14 days or comparators (imipenem/cilastatin [APEKS-cUTI], meropenem [APEKS-NP] or best available therapy [BAT; CREDIBLE-CR]). Bacteraemia and clinical outcomes were assessed at early assessment (EA), end of treatment (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) for patients in the intention-to-treat populations with baseline blood samples positive for aerobic gram-negative species. Eradication, persistence or recurrence of baseline blood pathogen was confirmed from follow-up blood cultures; in the absence of follow-up blood cultures, clinical response, administration of additional antibiotics and vital status were used to assess bacteraemia outcome.
resultsOf 885 patients randomised, 84 had bacteraemia and 89 (cefiderocol: 55, comparators: 34) gram-negative pathogens were isolated, namely Enterobacterales (n = 62) and non-fermenters (n = 27). At EA, on-therapy bacteraemia eradication rates in APEKS-cUTI, APEKS-NP and CREDIBLE-CR were 100% (19/19), 50.0% (4/8) and 72.0% (18/25) with cefiderocol. Corresponding rates for comparators were 77.8% (7/9), 100% (10/10) and 69.2% (9/13), respectively. Persistence in blood at EA was seen in six patients overall (cefiderocol: 3, comparators: 3); indeterminate responses were common (cefiderocol: 8, comparators: 3), usually due to lack of blood cultures. Clinical cure/improvement rates at EA in APEKS-cUTI, APEKS-NP and CREDIBLE-CR were 100% (19/19), 62.5% (5/8) and 64.0% (16/25) with cefiderocol. Corresponding rates for comparators were 77.8% (7/9), 90.0% (9/10) and 30.8% (4/13), respectively. Bacteraemia eradication rates with cefiderocol in APEKS-cUTI, APEKS-NP and CREDIBLE-CR were 89.5%, 37.5% and 60.0% at EOT and 78.9%, 12.5% and 44.0% at TOC.
conclusionThis descriptive analysis suggests that cefiderocol may be a useful treatment option for gram-negative bacteraemia, including pathogens resistant to other antibiotics.
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.