ArticlePloS one2026
Characterizing the in vitro and in vivo effect of bicarbonate on azithromycin activity against Acinetobacter baumannii.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), a Gram-negative bacterial pathogen, has been identified by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the top priority pathogen for which new antibiotics are needed. We found that the addition of bicarbonate at physiologically normal levels found in the blood (23.8 mM) increased susceptibility of A. baumannii clinical isolates (n = 63) to azithromycin and resulted in MIC50 shift from 64 mg/L in CAMHB to 1-2 mg/L in CAMHB + bicarbonate (23.8 mM) or RPMI-1640 respectively. To characterize in vivo efficacy in murine blood and lung infection models, mice were infected with A. baumannii and then mice were treated with a human equivalent dosing strategy of azithromycin. In vivo outcomes greatly depended on the infection model used. The bloodstream infection model showed a statistically significant increase in survival of the treatment group compared to the control group. However, that was not found with the oral aspiration infection model. We hypothesize that these in vivo results are due to the local differences of bicarbonate concentrations at the site of infection throughout the course of infection.
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.