ArticleInfection2023
Early treatment response to piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with bloodstream infections caused by non-ESBL ampicillin/sulbactam-resistant Escherichia coli: a binational cohort study.
Article in Infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Penicillin-Based Therapy Compared to Alternative Enterococcal Treatment in Patients With Vancomycin-Susceptible Enterococcal Bloodstream Infections: A Monocentric Cohort Study.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Gram-negative bloodstream infections: where can we do better? A retrospective cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare treatment outcomes for bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by a piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ)-susceptible E. coli among three patient groups: BSI caused by ampicillin/sulbactam (AMP/SLB)-resistant isolates treated with PIP/TAZ, BSI caused by AMP/SLB-sensitive isolates treated with PIP/TAZ, and BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates treated with another monotherapy.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in two academic centres in Europe. Adult patients with E. coli BSI were screened from 2014 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were non-ESBL BSI and initial monotherapy for ≥ 72 h. To reduce the expected bias between the patient groups, propensity score matching was performed. The primary outcome was early treatment response after 72 h and required absence of SOFA score increase in ICU/IMC patients, as well as resolution of fever, leukocytosis, and bacteraemia.
resultsOf the 1707 patients screened, 315 (18.5%) were included in the final analysis. Urinary tract infection was the most common source of BSI (54.9%). Monotherapies other than PIP/TAZ were cephalosporins (48.6%), carbapenems (34.3%), and quinolones (17.1%). Enhanced early treatment response rate was detected (p = 0.04) in patients with BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates treated with another monotherapy (74.3%) compared to those treated with PIP/TAZ (57.1%), and was mainly driven by the use of cephalosporins and quinolones (p ≤ 0.03). Clinical success, 28-day mortality, and rate of relapsing BSI did not significantly differ between the groups.
conclusionsOur study suggests that initial use of PIP/TAZ may be associated with reduced early treatment response in E. coli BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates compared to alternative monotherapies.
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.