The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study)
Open accessAbstract
Background: Imipenem combined with the β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7–14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7–14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. Results: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, −5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, −3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02493764.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections
Magill, S. S., Edwards, J. R., Bamberg, W., Beldavs, Z. G., Dumyati, G., Kainer, M. A., Lynfield, R., Maloney, M., McAllister-Hollod, L., Nadle, J., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1306801 · Cited by 3,931
Torres, A., Niederman, M. S., Chastre, J., Ewig, S., Fernandez-Vandellos, P., Hanberger, H., Kollef, M., Li Bassi, G., Luna, C. M., Martin-Loeches, I., et al. (2017) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.00582-2017 · Cited by 1,387
Self-citation
Cited by
Humphries, R., Bobenchik, A. M., Hindler, J. A., & Schuetz, A. N. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00213-21 · Cited by 1,493
Tamma, P. D., Aitken, S. L., Bonomo, R. A., Mathers, A. J., van Duin, D., & Clancy, C. J. (2023) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad428 · Cited by 740
The Epidemiology and Pathogenesis and Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections: An Update
Reynolds, D., & Kollef, M. (2021) · Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40265-021-01635-6 · Cited by 721
Tamma, P. D., Aitken, S. L., Bonomo, R. A., Mathers, A. J., van Duin, D., & Clancy, C. J. (2022) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciac268 · Cited by 526
Metadata
- Authors
- Titov, I., Wunderink, R. G., Roquilly, A., Rodríguez Gonzalez, D., David-Wang, A., Boucher, H. W., Kaye, K. S., Losada, M. C., Du, J., Tipping, R., Rizk, M. L., Patel, M., Brown, M. L., Young, K., Kartsonis, N. A., Butterton, J. R., Paschke, A., & Chen, L. F.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-08-12
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e4539-e4548
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W3049761879
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/ciaa803
- The paper
- Titov, I., Wunderink, R. G., Roquilly, A., Rodríguez Gonzalez, D., David-Wang, A., Boucher, H. W., Kaye, K. S., Losada, M. C., Du, J., Tipping, R., Rizk, M. L., Patel, M., Brown, M. L., Young, K., Kartsonis, N. A., Butterton, J. R., Paschke, A., & Chen, L. F. (2021). A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study). Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa803
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.