ArticleInfection2026
Evaluating the health economic impact of cefepime/enmetazobactam in complicated urinary tract infections in the German setting: a cost analysis from payer perspective.
Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-world outcomes of cefepime/enmetazobactam for Enterobacterales infections: a retrospective descriptive study.Microbiology spectrum · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesComplicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) are ubiquitous, associated with healthcare resources, and demand effective antibiotic treatment to prevent clinical failure and relapse. Evidence on health economic implications of treatment options remains limited. Recent studies have shown that cefepime/enmetazobactam was superior to piperacillin/tazobactam regarding the combined endpoints clinical cure and microbiological eradication, the latter being closely linked to reduced relapse rates. Therefore, we perform a health economic evaluation of cefepime/enmetazobactam vs. piperacillin/tazobactam for cUTI from a German payer perspective.
methodsTo assess monetary impacts of both therapies, we conducted a semi-structured literature review for costs of (relapsed) cUTI. Subsequently, we adjusted international costs to the German healthcare system using European price levels of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. These built the basis of a comparative health economic analysis using a decision tree incorporating outcome probabilities and relapse rates for both antibiotics. Lastly, we validated the analysis using publicly available remuneration data from German hospitals.
resultsLiterature revealed international costs of €5,394 and €6,675 per patient without and with clinical relapse, converting to €5,137.14 and €6,357.14 in Germany, respectively. Considering the probability of occurrence of clinical cure, microbiological persistence, and relapse rates, average treatment costs per patient for cefepime/enmetazobactam amount to €5,332.12 compared to €5,414.83 for piperacillin/tazobactam.
conclusionThe analysis shows that a higher probability of relapse after antibiotic therapy might be associated with an increase in treatment costs within the German healthcare system. Although per-patient cost differences between cefepime/enmetazobactam and piperacillin/tazobactam are moderate, their cumulative impact at the population level could be substantial, emphasizing the broader health-economic relevance of treatment choice for cUTI.
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.