ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Standard versus double dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis: The BULLSEYE study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06766461 (Beta-Lactam Antibiotics InitiaL ExpoSure OptimisEd in CriticallY Ill Patients with SEpsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Beta-Lactam Antibiotics InitiaL ExpoSure OptimisEd in CriticallY Ill Patients with SEpsis
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Model-Informed Precision Dosing of Beta-Lactams in Critical Care Improve Clinical Outcomes?Chemotherapy · 2026Review
- Correction: Standard versus double dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis: The BULLSEYE study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Optimization of meropenem dosing regimens in critically ill patients with augmented renal clearance.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis and septic shock are significant global healthcare challenges with high mortality rates. Effective management requires timely and adequate antimicrobial therapy. Beta-lactam antibiotics, commonly used in patients with sepsis, are crucial for treating these infections. However, standard dosing often leads to insufficient plasma levels due to dynamic physiological changes in critically ill patients. Previous randomized controlled trials highlighted the need for timely dose adjustments to improve clinical outcomes. This is the study protocol for the BULLSEYE trial in which we aim to optimize antibiotic treatment during the initial 48 h of sepsis by comparing standard to double dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics.
methodsThis open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will compare standard to double dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics (cefuroxime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, flucloxacillin, meropenem, and piperacillin/clavulanic acid) in critically ill patients with septic shock. Participants will be randomized into two arms: the control arm receiving standard care, and the intervention arm receiving double antibiotic doses for 48 h, irrespective of renal function. Following this period, all patients will receive standard doses as per local protocol. The primary outcome is all cause 28-day mortality, with secondary outcomes including 90-day, 365-day, hospital and ICU mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay, SOFA scores, time to shock reversal, microbiological eradication, clinical cure, pharmacodynamic target attainment, safety, quality of life, and medical consumption. DISCUSSION: The BULLSEYE trial aims to improve sepsis treatment in critically ill patients. Despite anticipated recruitment challenges, its large sample size ensures robust comparability. This pivotal trial could significantly impact sepsis treatment, leading to better clinical outcomes.
trial registrationEU_CT 2024-512950-13-00. Protocol version 2.3, protocol date 09-12-2024. Prospectively registered on 09-01-2025 at Clinicaltrails.gov nr. NCT06766461.
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.