Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 199

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC) infections: a review of published case series and case reports

Open access
Lee, Grace C, Burgess, David S·2012·Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials

Abstract

The emergence of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs) producing bacteria has become a significant global public health challenge while the optimal treatment remains undefined. We performed a systematic review of published studies and reports of treatment outcomes of KPC infections using MEDLINE (2001-2011). Articles or cases were excluded if one of the following was fulfilled: no individual patient data provided, no treatment regimen specified, no treatment outcome specified, report of colonization, or greater than three antibiotics were used to treat the KPC infection. Data extracted included patient demographics, site of infection, organism, KPC subtype, antimicrobial therapy directed at KPC-infection, and treatment outcome. Statistical analysis was performed in an exploratory manner. A total of 38 articles comprising 105 cases were included in the analysis. The majority of infections were due to K. pneumoniae (89%). The most common site of infection was blood (52%), followed by respiratory (30%), and urine (10%). Forty-nine (47%) cases received monotherapy and 56 (53%) cases received combination therapy directed at the KPC-infection. Significantly more treatment failures were seen in cases that received monotherapy compared to cases who received combination therapy (49% vs 25%; p= 0.01). Respiratory infections were associated with higher rates of treatment failure with monotherapy compared to combination therapy (67% vs 29% p= 0.03). Polymyxin monotherapy was associated with higher treatment failure rates compared to polymyxin-based combination therapy (73% vs 29%; p= 0.02); similarly, higher treatment failure rates were seen with carbapenem monotherapy compared to carbapenem-based combination therapy (60% vs 26%; p= 0.03). Overall treatment failure rates were not significantly different in the three most common antibiotic-class combinations: polymyxin plus carbapenem, polymyxin plus tigecycline, polymyxin plus aminoglycoside (30%, 29%, and 25% respectively; p=0.6). In conclusion, combination therapy is recommended for the treatment of KPC infections; however, which combination of antimicrobial agents needs to be established in future prospective clinical trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1476-0711-11-32

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 199

Metadata

Authors
Lee, G. C., & Burgess, D. S.
Venue
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
Published
2012
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
32
ISSN
1476-0711 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096115572
Cited by
199
References
1
FWCI
10.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Treatment of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC) infections: a review of published case series and case reports. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1476-0711-11-32
The paper
Lee, G. C., & Burgess, D. S. (2012). Treatment of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC) infections: a review of published case series and case reports. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-0711-11-32

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.