Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39504496›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2025

Resistance profiles of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in a large centre in England: are we already losing cefiderocol?

Ioannis Baltas, Trupti Patel, Ana Lima Soares

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Siderophore cephalosporins.EcoSal Plus · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Microbiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ioannis BaltasDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8008-4835
Trupti PatelDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ana Lima SoaresDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) pose difficult therapeutic challenges. We aimed to characterize antimicrobial resistance profiles of CPE in our centre.

methodsAll non-duplicate CPE isolates between 1 August 2020 and 31 August 2023 in a large teaching trust in England were retrospectively studied. Cefiderocol antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was performed using disc diffusion, ceftazidime/avibactam using disc diffusion and gradient diffusion, and ceftazidime/avibactam aztreonam synergy using the double disc diffusion method. EUCAST version 14.0 breakpoints were used.

resultsA total of 158 CPE from 136 patients were isolated. Most patients were colonized with CPE, but only 16.9% had active infections. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 10.3%, increasing to 13% for patients with infections and to 18.2% for bacteraemias. OXA-48 was the most prevalent carbapenemase (48.1%), followed by NDM (38%). All isolates exhibited MDR profiles, with high levels of resistance to meropenem (41.1%). Resistance to cefiderocol was found in 69.7% of NDM-producing isolates, with a further 18.2% in the area of technical uncertainty. Ceftazidime/avibactam and aztreonam synergy was seen in 87.5% of isolates, whereas colistin and fosfomycin susceptibility remained high (98.1% and 97.2%, respectively). All OXA-48-producing isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam, and 15.3% were resistant to cefiderocol. No patients had been exposed to cefiderocol beforehand, whereas three had been exposed to ceftazidime/avibactam. The most common risk factor for CPE isolation was travel and receiving healthcare abroad, especially in Asia.

conclusionsWe found high rates of resistance to cefiderocol in CPE isolates without prior cefiderocol exposure. Our results prohibit empirical use of cefiderocol for the treatment of CPE infections in our setting.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasesCefiderocolCeftazidimeEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAzabicyclo CompoundsCarbapenem-Resistant EnterobacteriaceaeCephalosporinsDrug CombinationsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEnglandAnti-Bacterial Agentsavibactam, ceftazidime drug combinationAzabicyclo CompoundsBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasescarbapenemaseCefiderocolCeftazidimeCephalosporinsDrug Combinations

Identifiers

PMID39504496
PMCPMC11695913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.