ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Effectiveness of Carbapenem-Sparing Antibiotics Versus Carbapenems for Treating Non-Bacteremic Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales Infections.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Versus Meropenem Regimens in Treating Bloodstream Infections Caused by Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-ProducingJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Etiopathogenesis and Antibacterial Therapy Approach in Patients with Acute Obstructive Pyelonephritis-A Retrospective Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) pose a significant public health threat. While carbapenems are known to be superior in treating bacteremic infections, the evidence is unclear for non-bacteremic infections. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of carbapenem-sparing therapies compared to carbapenems for non-bacteremic ESBL-E infections. Methodology: This is a retrospective observational cohort study involving patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed diagnoses of ESBL-E non-bacteremic infections who received either carbapenems or carbapenem-sparing targeted therapy during the study period. The primary outcomes were clinical cure and 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included microbiological eradication, recurrence of ESBL-E infection within 6 months, and the 30-day incidence of new multidrug-resistant infections. Results: The study included 216 patients: 117 in the carbapenem group and 99 in the carbapenem-sparing group. Both groups showed no significant differences in 30-day all-cause mortality and clinical resolution. However, notable statistical differences were observed in three secondary outcomes: the carbapenem group had a higher recurrence rate of ESBL infections (RR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.05-2.59, P = 0.025) and more secondary multidrug-resistant infections (RR 1.92, 95% CI: 1.11-3.31, P = 0.015), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infections (RR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.10-4.63, P = 0.020). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that carbapenem-sparing therapies for ESBL-E nonbacteremic infections are non-inferior to carbapenems, with comparable 30-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and bacteriological resolution rates. Additionally, carbapenem-sparing options showed lower recurrence rates of ESBL-E infections and reduced development of secondary multidrug-resistant infections, including CRE infections.
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.