Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42598847›Full record

ArticlePharmacotherapy2026

Focused Update to International Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Prolonged-Infusion Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Among Severely Ill Adult Patients: Endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

Lisa T Hong, Alireza FakhriRavari, Marta Ulldemolins, Jason A Roberts, Robert A Bonomo, Marc H Scheetz, Prolonged‐Infusion Beta‐Lactam Consensus Panel

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa T HongLoma Linda University School of Pharmacy, Loma Linda, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-5400
Alireza FakhriRavariLoma Linda University School of Pharmacy, Loma Linda, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1636-6387
Marta UlldemolinsUQ Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Behavioural Sciences (HMBS), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5050-8430
Jason A RobertsUQ Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Behavioural Sciences (HMBS), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6218-435X
Robert A BonomoCleveland Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3299-894X
Marc H ScheetzDepartments of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacology, Pharmacometric Center of Excellence, Midwestern University-Downers Grove Campus, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1091-6130
Prolonged‐Infusion Beta‐Lactam Consensus Panel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2023, international consensus recommendations suggested the use of prolonged-infusion beta-lactam antibiotics over short-infusion dosing in severely ill adult patients to improve mortality or clinical cure, although the certainty of evidence was very low. With the availability of several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this focused update re-evaluates the efficacy of prolonged versus short infusion among severely ill adult patients. The original Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) question VII was separated into two questions addressing mortality (VIIa) and clinical cure (VIIb). Methods used for study identification, screening, and evidence grading were consistent with the original guideline, with the addition of Bayesian meta-analyses. A total of 28 RCTs evaluating mortality in severely ill adults were analyzed, with pooled estimates favoring prolonged infusion (RR 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97), supported by Bayesian analyses demonstrating a 98.76% posterior probability of benefit. Across 21 RCTs evaluating clinical cure, prolonged infusion improved outcomes compared with short infusion (RR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.17), supported by Bayesian analyses demonstrating a 99.97% posterior probability of benefit. Certainty of evidence was strengthened to moderate for mortality and low for clinical cure. Consistent with the original recommendation (PICO X), subgroup analyses evaluating loading doses suggested improved outcomes when a loading dose is used before continuous infusion. Overall, the cumulative evidence reinforces and strengthens the recommendation for use of prolonged-infusion beta-lactam therapy in severely ill adult patients to improve survival and clinical cure. Continued use of loading doses when initiating continuous-infusion therapy is suggested. Future research should identify subpopulations most likely to benefit, clarify optimal prolonged-infusion strategies, and define the role of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial Agentsbeta Lactam Antibioticsbeta-LactamsAdultBayes TheoremCritical IllnessHumansInfusions, IntravenousRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta Lactam Antibioticsbeta-Lactamsbeta‐lactamsconsensusinfectious diseasesprolonged infusion

Identifiers

PMID42598847
PMCPMC13474301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.