ArticleInfection2026
Implementation of automated alerts for last-resort antibiotics with indication review by infectious diseases specialists: impact on antibiotic prescription quality and costs.
Article in Infection, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInfections caused by resistant pathogens represent a global public health challenge. In the current study we aimed to assess the effects on prescription quality and the economic impact of implementing an automated email alert system for last-resort antibiotics, followed by mandatory indication review by infectious diseases (ID) specialists.
methodsA prospective single-centre economic and processual evaluation study of orders of last-resort antibiotics at a large tertiary care university hospital (2210 beds) in Germany was performed. Orders of ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, or cefiderocol triggered an indication review by ID specialists with subsequent recommendations to the primary treating physicians. Expected medication costs of continued therapy were compared to projected costs with adherence to ID recommendations.
resultsThe spectrum of infections for which last-resort antibiotics were prescribed was broad, with respiratory, intraabdominal, skin and soft tissue infections representing > 60% of underlying entities. Dominant pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella spp. and Escherichia coli. ID specialists recommended modifications to the antibiotic regime in almost half of the alerts, including switching (21%), discontinuation (14%) and dosage modifications (7%). Potential cost savings by de-escalation to non-last-resort antibiotics or treatment discontinuation were 65,092€ per year (1,549 € per initial last-resort antibiotic prescription). Adherence analysis revealed that further improvement appears feasible, potentially through structured follow-up ID consultations.
conclusionImplementation of automated last-resort antibiotic alerts, followed by an indication review by ID specialists, proved to be a valuable tool with respect to prescription quality and economic benefits. Generalisability of this approach should be investigated in non-tertiary care settings. Moreover, future studies should address potential effects on clinical outcomes and antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42584819What 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.