Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37291465›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of antibiotics2023

Antibiotics in the clinical pipeline as of December 2022.

Mark S Butler, Ian R Henderson, Robert J Capon, Mark A T Blaskovich

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of antibiotics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 126 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
38.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 209 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark S ButlerCentre for Superbug Solutions, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. m.butler5@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6689-4236
Ian R HendersonCentre for Superbug Solutions, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9954-4977
Robert J CaponCentre for Superbug Solutions, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8341-7754
Mark A T BlaskovichCentre for Superbug Solutions, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. m.blaskovich@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9447-2292
The University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for new antibacterial drugs to treat the increasing global prevalence of drug-resistant bacterial infections has clearly attracted global attention, with a range of existing and upcoming funding, policy, and legislative initiatives designed to revive antibacterial R&D. It is essential to assess whether these programs are having any real-world impact and this review continues our systematic analyses that began in 2011. Direct-acting antibacterials (47), non-traditional small molecule antibacterials (5), and β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (10) under clinical development as of December 2022 are described, as are the three antibacterial drugs launched since 2020. Encouragingly, the increased number of early-stage clinical candidates observed in the 2019 review increased in 2022, although the number of first-time drug approvals from 2020 to 2022 was disappointingly low. It will be critical to monitor how many Phase-I and -II candidates move into Phase-III and beyond in the next few years. There was also an enhanced presence of novel antibacterial pharmacophores in early-stage trials, and at least 18 of the 26 phase-I candidates were targeted to treat Gram-negative bacteria infections. Despite the promising early-stage antibacterial pipeline, it is essential to maintain funding for antibacterial R&D and to ensure that plans to address late-stage pipeline issues succeed.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-Lactamase InhibitorsDrug ApprovalGram-Negative BacteriaHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-Lactamase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID37291465
PMCPMC10248350
OpenAlexW4379966703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.