↓ Skip to main content

Empiric Therapy With Carbapenem-Sparing Regimens for Bloodstream Infections due to Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae: Results From the INCREMENT Cohort.

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Empiric Therapy With Carbapenem-Sparing Regimens for Bloodstream Infections due to Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae: Results From the INCREMENT Cohort.
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, August 2017
DOI 10.1093/cid/cix606
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zaira Raquel Palacios-Baena, Belén Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Esther Calbo, Benito Almirante, Pierluigi Viale, Antonio Oliver, Vicente Pintado, Oriol Gasch, Luis Martínez-Martínez, Johann Pitout, Murat Akova, Carmen Peña, José Molina Gil-Bermejo, Alicia Hernández, Mario Venditti, Nuria Prim, German Bou, Evelina Tacconelli, Mario Tumbarello, Axel Hamprecht, Helen Giamarellou, Manel Almela, Federico Pérez, Mitchell J Schwaber, Joaquín Bermejo, Warren Lowman, Po-Ren Hsueh, José Ramón Paño-Pardo, Julián Torre-Cisneros, Maria Souli, Robert A Bonomo, Yehuda Carmeli, David L Paterson, Álvaro Pascual, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño, J Gálvez, M Falcone, A Russo, G Daikos, E M Trecarichi, A R Losito, J Gómez, E Iosifidis, E Roilides, I Karaiskos, Y Doi, F F Tuon, F Navarro, B Mirelis, JA Martínez, C de la Calle, L Morata, R San Juan, M Fernández-Ruiz, N Larrosa, M Puig, J Molina, V González, V Rucci, E Ruiz de Gopegui, C I Marinescu, M C Fariñas, M E Cano, M Gozalo, M Mora-Rillo, S Gómez-Zorrilla, F Tubau, S Pournaras, A Tsakris, O Zarkotou, Ö K Azap, A Antoniadou, G Poulakou, D Virmani, Á Cano, I Machuca, Ö Helvaci, A O Sahin, P Ruiz-Garbajosa, M Bartoletti, M Giannella, S Peter, C Badia, M Xercavins, D Fontanals, E Jové

Abstract

There is little information about the efficacy of active alternative drugs to carbapenems except β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors for the treatment of bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E). The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients with BSI due to ESBL-E who received empiric therapy with such drugs (other active drugs [OADs]) or carbapenems. A multinational retrospective cohort study of patients with BSI due to ESBL-E who received empiric treatment with OADs or carbapenems was performed. Cox regression including a propensity score for receiving OADs was performed to analyze 30-day all-cause mortality as main outcome. Clinical failure and length of stay were also analyzed. Overall, 335 patients were included; 249 received empiric carbapenems and 86 OADs. The most frequent OADs were aminoglycosides (43 patients) and fluoroquinolones (20 patients). Empiric therapy with OADs was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], .38-1.48) in the Cox regression analysis. Propensity score-matched pairs, subgroups, and sensitivity analyses did not show different trends; specifically, the adjusted HR for aminoglycosides was 1.05 (95% CI, .51-2.16). OADs were neither associated with 14-day clinical failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, .29-1.36) nor length of hospital stay. We were unable to show that empiric treatment with OAD was associated with a worse outcome compared with carbapenems. This information allows more options to be considered for empiric therapy, at least for some patients, depending on local susceptibility patterns of ESBL-E.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 18%
Other 12 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 39 27%
Unknown 39 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 54 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,118,001
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#2,013
of 16,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,690
of 324,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#33
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.