The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ceftazidime-avibactam Versus Doripenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a Phase 3 Randomized Trial Program
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The global emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae highlights the urgent need to reduce carbapenem dependence. The phase 3 RECAPTURE program compared the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam and doripenem in patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed cUTI/acute pyelonephritis were randomized 1:1 to ceftazidime-avibactam 2000 mg/500 mg every 8 hours or doripenem 500 mg every 8 hours (doses adjusted for renal function), with possible oral antibiotic switch after ≥5 days (total treatment duration up to 10 days or 14 days for patients with bacteremia). RESULTS: Of 1033 randomized patients, 393 and 417 treated with ceftazidime-avibactam and doripenem, respectively, were eligible for the primary efficacy analyses; 19.6% had ceftazidime-nonsusceptible baseline pathogens. Noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam vs doripenem was demonstrated for the US Food and Drug Administration co-primary endpoints of (1) patient-reported symptomatic resolution at day 5: 276 of 393 (70.2%) vs 276 of 417 (66.2%) patients (difference, 4.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -2.39% to 10.42%]); and (2) combined symptomatic resolution/microbiological eradication at test of cure (TOC): 280 of 393 (71.2%) vs 269 of 417 (64.5%) patients (difference, 6.7% [95% CI, .30% to 13.12%]). Microbiological eradication at TOC (European Medicines Agency primary endpoint) occurred in 304 of 393 (77.4%) ceftazidime-avibactam vs 296 of 417 (71.0%) doripenem patients (difference, 6.4% [95% CI, .33% to 12.36%]), demonstrating superiority at the 5% significance level. Both treatments showed similar efficacy against ceftazidime-nonsusceptible pathogens. Ceftazidime-avibactam had a safety profile consistent with that of ceftazidime alone. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam was highly effective for the empiric treatment of cUTI (including acute pyelonephritis), and may offer an alternative to carbapenems in this setting. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01595438; NCT01599806.
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
Cited by
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
Torres, A., Zhong, N., Pachl, J., Timsit, J.-F., Kollef, M., Chen, Z., Song, J., Taylor, D., Laud, P. J., Stone, G. G., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30747-8 · Cited by 441
Self-citationTamma, P. D., Aitken, S. L., Bonomo, R. A., Mathers, A. J., van Duin, D., & Clancy, C. J. (2021) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1478 · Cited by 441
Portsmouth, S., van Veenhuyzen, D., Echols, R., Machida, M., Ferreira, J. C. A., Ariyasu, M., Tenke, P., & Nagata, T. D. (2018) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30554-1 · Cited by 420
Ceftazidime-Avibactam: A Review in the Treatment of Serious Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections
Shirley, M. (2018) · Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40265-018-0902-x · Cited by 371
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagenlehner, F. M., Sobel, J. D., Newell, P., Armstrong, J., Huang, X., Stone, G. G., Yates, K., & Gasink, L. B.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-06-16
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 754-762
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2437593726
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 36.25
- 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: Ceftazidime-avibactam Versus Doripenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a Phase 3 Randomized Trial Program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/ciw378
- The paper
- Wagenlehner, F. M., Sobel, J. D., Newell, P., Armstrong, J., Huang, X., Stone, G. G., Yates, K., & Gasink, L. B. (2016). Ceftazidime-avibactam Versus Doripenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a Phase 3 Randomized Trial Program. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw378
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.