Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,104 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A fourth-generation cephalosporin antibacterial agent that is used in the treatment of infections, including those of the abdomen, urinary tract, respiratory tract, and skin. It is effective against pseudomonas aeruginosa and may also be used in the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Cefepim; BMY 28142; BMY-28142; BMY28142; Maxipime; Cefepime Hydrochloride; Quadrocef; Axépim.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Cephalosporins
Related concepts
- Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
- Febrile Neutropenia
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,879 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Cefepime” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 585 of them (31.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 585 records.
Reviews account for 142 records (7.6%) and meta-analyses for 17. Randomized controlled trials number 124 (6.6%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 296 |
| 2000-2009 | 488 |
| 2010-2019 | 510 |
| 2020 onward | 585 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 142 | 7.6% |
| Meta-analyses | 17 | 0.9% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 124 | 6.6% |
Method: PubMed query "Cefepime"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in drugs and chemicals
Studies of a chemical or drug can answer very different questions: what it is and how it behaves in cells and animals, how the body handles it, and whether it changes outcomes in people. Laboratory and animal findings often do not carry over to patients, and observational studies of exposures are confounded by who uses a substance and why. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to use, avoid, start or stop any substance or medicine; talk to a qualified clinician or pharmacist about your own situation. Check the dose, the species, the comparison group and whether a patient-relevant outcome was measured.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
In Vitro Activity of Cefepime-Enmetazobactam against Gram-Negative Isolates Collected from U.S. and European Hospitals during 2014-2015 [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Enmetazobactam, formerly AAI101, is a novel penicillanic acid sulfone extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) inhibitor.
- Closing excerpt
- Cefepime-enmetazobactam may represent a novel carbapenem-sparing option for empirical treatment of serious Gram-negative infections in settings where ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are expected.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (254 words)
Enmetazobactam, formerly AAI101, is a novel penicillanic acid sulfone extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) inhibitor. The combination of enmetazobactam with cefepime has entered clinical trials to assess safety and efficacy in patients with complicated urinary tract infections. Here, the in vitro activity of cefepime-enmetazobactam was determined for 1,993 clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa collected in the United States and Europe during 2014 and 2015. Enmetazobactam at a fixed concentration of 8 μg/ml lowered the cefepime MIC90 from 16 to 0.12 μg/ml for Escherichia coli, from >64 to 0.5 μg/ml for Klebsiella pneumoniae, from 16 to 1 μg/ml for Enterobacter cloacae, and from 0.5 to 0.25 μg/ml for Enterobacter aerogenes Enmetazobactam did not enhance the potency of cefepime against P. aeruginosa Applying the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute susceptible-dose-dependent (SDD) breakpoint of 8 μg/ml to cefepime-enmetazobactam for comparative purposes resulted in cumulative inhibitions of 99.9% for E. coli, 96.4% for K. pneumoniae, 97.0% for E. cloacae, 100% for E. aerogenes, 98.1% for all Enterobacteriaceae assessed, and 82.8% for P. aeruginosa Comparator susceptibilities for all Enterobacteriaceae were 99.7% for ceftazidime-avibactam, 96.2% for meropenem, 90.7% for ceftolozane-tazobactam, 87% for cefepime (SDD breakpoint), 85.7% for piperacillin-tazobactam, and 81.2% for ceftazidime. For the subset of ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae isolates, the addition of 8 μg/ml enmetazobactam to cefepime lowered the MIC90 from >64 to 1 μg/ml, whereas the shift for 8 μg/ml tazobactam was from >64 to 8 μg/ml. Cefepime-enmetazobactam may represent a novel carbapenem-sparing option for empirical treatment of serious Gram-negative infections in settings where ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are expected.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30988152 · DOI · PMC6591593
The effect of the efflux pump inhibitor Carbonyl Cyanide m-Chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP) on the susceptibility to imipenem and cefepime in clinical strains of Acinetobacter baumannii [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- IntroductionIn the last years the rapid expansion of multidrug-resistant A.
- Closing excerpt
- baumannii.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (367 words)
IntroductionIn the last years the rapid expansion of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii strains have become a major health problem. Efflux pumps are a group of transport proteins that contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the efflux pump inhibitor carbonyl cyanide 3-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP) on the antimicrobial action of imipenem and cefepime on clinical strains of A. baumannii.Materials and methodsA total of 49 non-duplicate clinical samples were collected during January through December of 2018 from patients hospitalized in the Hospital Regional Docente de Cajamarca. Of the 49 samples obtained, the confirmatory identification of A. baumannii was performed on 47 samples by molecular methods. The amplification of the blaOXA-51-like gene was carried out by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The determination of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was calculated using the microdilution method in culture broth. The susceptibility to both antibiotics (cefepime and imipenem) was evaluated in the presence and absence of the inhibitor carbonyl cyanide 3-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP).ResultsA total of 47 strains of A. baumannii were isolated: 97.87% (46/47) were resistant to Imipenem, 2.13% (1/47) of them were classified as intermediate and none of these strains were susceptible. On the other hand, 51.06% (24/47) of isolates were resistant to cefepime; 19.15% (9/47) intermediate and 29.79% (14/47) susceptible. We considered a significant difference in antibiotic susceptibility if the MIC changed at least 4 dilutions, after the addition of the inhibitor. In the case of CCCP in addition to imipenem, 2.1% (1/47) had a significant change of 4 or more reductions in MIC, 59.6% (28/47) achieved a change equal or less than 3 dilutions and 17.0% (8/47) did not have any change. In the case of CCCP with cefepime the percentage of strains with the significant change of MIC was 8.5% (4/47). On the other hand, 53.2% (24/47) presented a reduction equal or less than 3 dilutions and 12.8% (6/47) did not show changes.ConclusionIn conclusion, our results demonstrate that the use of CCCP may improve the antibiotic effect of imipenem and cefepime on clinical strains of A. baumannii. The relevance of this study is that it provides evidence that this efflux pump inhibitor may be an alternative treatment against multidrug-resistant A. baumannii.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34919563 · DOI · PMC8682880
Patient outcomes by baseline pathogen resistance phenotype and genotype in CERTAIN-1, a Phase 3 study of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in adults with complicated urinary tract infection [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- CERTAIN-1 was a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study of the efficacy and safety of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis.
- Closing excerpt
- gov as NCT03840148.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (235 words)
CERTAIN-1 was a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study of the efficacy and safety of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. We determined susceptibility of Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa baseline pathogens to cefepime-taniborbactam and comparators and characterized β-lactam resistance mechanisms. Microbiologic response and clinical response were assessed in patient subsets defined by baseline pathogens that were of cefepime-, multidrug-, or carbapenem-resistant phenotype or that carried β-lactamase genes. Among Enterobacterales baseline pathogens, 26.8%, 4.1%, and 3.0% carried genes for extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC, and carbapenemases, respectively. Within each treatment group, while composite success rates at Test of Cure in resistant subsets by pathogen species were similar to those by pathogen overall, composite success rates in meropenem patients were numerically lower for cefepime-resistant Escherichia coli (9/19; 47.4%) and ESBL E. coli (13/25; 52.0%) compared with E. coli overall (62/100; 62.0%). Cefepime-taniborbactam achieved composite success in 7/8 (87.5%) patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and 8/9 (88.9%) patients with Enterobacterales with a carbapenemase gene (5 OXA-48-group; 2 KPC-3; 2 NDM-1). Cefepime-taniborbactam also achieved composite success in 8/16 (50.0%) patients and clinical success in 13/16 (81.3%) patients with P. aeruginosa; corresponding rates were 4/7 (57.1%) and 6/7 (85.7%) for meropenem. Cefepime-taniborbactam demonstrated efficacy in adult cUTI patients with cefepime-, multidrug-, and carbapenem-resistant pathogens including pathogens with ESBL, AmpC, and carbapenemase genes.Clinical trialsThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03840148.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 38780262 · DOI · PMC11232400
Activity of aztreonam-avibactam, cefiderocol, and cefepime-taniborbactam against a global collection of genetically characterized metallo-β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- We evaluated the activity of aztreonam-avibactam and comparators tested against 490 MBL-producing Enterobacterales isolates collected in 27 countries during 2019-2022.
- Closing excerpt
- Aztreonam-avibactam was active against this large collection of MBL-producing isolates that had elevated MIC values for many comparator agents.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (248 words)
We evaluated the activity of aztreonam-avibactam and comparators tested against 490 MBL-producing Enterobacterales isolates collected in 27 countries during 2019-2022. The most common MBL was NDM-1, which was detected among 307 isolates. The genes encoding NDM-5 and VIM-1 were detected among 68 and 53 isolates, respectively. Other 14 MBL-encoding genes or combinations were detected among 62 isolates. Mexico, Turkey, and Greece had the highest number of isolates (60, 59, and 57, respectively). All isolates were susceptible to aztreonam-avibactam (MIC50/90, 0.12/0.5 mg/L) when applying the EUCAST or FDA recently approved breakpoints (≤4 mg/L susceptible). Cefiderocol inhibited 66.7%/90.8% of the isolates when using EUCAST/FDA breakpoints. Cefepime-taniborbactam was active against 36.7%/55.5% of the isolates using the cefepime breakpoint for comparison purposes. Tigecycline and colistin inhibited 94.1% and 76.6% of the isolates (FDA and EUCAST breakpoints, respectively). The analysis of resistance mechanisms and genetic background of the MBL-producing isolates demonstrated genetic diversity among main species and presence of multiple resistance mechanisms including other β-lactamases, porin changes, and disruptions of efflux pump repressors. Aztreonam-avibactam was active despite the presence of these additional resistance mechanisms, but cefiderocol and cefepime-taniborbactam displayed variable activity. PBP3 YRIN and YRIK insertions were observed among 30 MBL-producing E. coli isolates. Aztreonam-avibactam MIC values ranged from 0.03 to 4 mg/L for these isolates, including an isolate carrying blaNDM-7, blaCMY-42, and porin changes. MBL-producing organisms are still considered an unmet medical need. Aztreonam-avibactam was active against this large collection of MBL-producing isolates that had elevated MIC values for many comparator agents.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41347523 · DOI · PMC12777553
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Cefepime-Taniborbactam: A Novel Cephalosporin/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination [5]
- Research article Cefepime/Enmetazobactam: a microbiological, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical evaluation [6]
- Research article The Role of Cefepime in the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Infections [7]
- Research article Piperacillin/tazobactam vs. cefepime or carbapenems for the treatment of bloodstream infections due to bacteria producing chromosomal AmpC beta-lactamase: a systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Resistance of Gram-Negative Bacteria to Cefepime-Enmetazobactam: A Systematic Review [9]
- Research article Cefepime-taniborbactam: Ushering in the era of metallo-β-lactamase inhibition [10]
References
- Morrissey I, Magnet S, Hawser S, Shapiro S, Knechtle P. In Vitro Activity of Cefepime-Enmetazobactam against Gram-Negative Isolates Collected from U.S. and European Hospitals during 2014-2015. . 2019. PMID 30988152 · DOI · PMC6591593
- Sanchez-Carbonel A, Mondragón B, López-Chegne N, Peña-Tuesta I, Huayan-Dávila G, Blitchtein D, et al.. The effect of the efflux pump inhibitor Carbonyl Cyanide m-Chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP) on the susceptibility to imipenem and cefepime in clinical strains of Acinetobacter baumannii. . 2021. PMID 34919563 · DOI · PMC8682880
- Moeck G, Gasink LB, Mendes RE, Woosley LN, Dorr M, Chen H, et al.. Patient outcomes by baseline pathogen resistance phenotype and genotype in CERTAIN-1, a Phase 3 study of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in adults with complicated urinary tract infection. . 2024. PMID 38780262 · DOI · PMC11232400
- Castanheira M, Kimbrough JH, Morgan GM, Karr M, Sader HS. Activity of aztreonam-avibactam, cefiderocol, and cefepime-taniborbactam against a global collection of genetically characterized metallo-β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales. . 2026. PMID 41347523 · DOI · PMC12777553
- Zhanel GG, Mansour C, Mikolayanko S, Lawrence CK, Zelenitsky S, Ramirez D, et al.. Cefepime-Taniborbactam: A Novel Cephalosporin/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination. Drugs. 2024. PMID 39214942 · DOI
- Darlow CA, Hope W, Dubey V. Cefepime/Enmetazobactam: a microbiological, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical evaluation. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2025. PMID 39508805 · DOI
- Patel HB, Lusk KA, Cota JM. The Role of Cefepime in the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Infections. J Pharm Pract. 2019. PMID 29166830 · DOI
- Onorato L, de Luca I, Salvati A, Monari C, Coppola N. Piperacillin/tazobactam vs. cefepime or carbapenems for the treatment of bloodstream infections due to bacteria producing chromosomal AmpC beta-lactamase: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infection. 2025. PMID 39630396 · DOI
- Falagas ME, Romanos LT, Kontogiannis DS, Tsiara K, Kakoullis SA. Resistance of Gram-Negative Bacteria to Cefepime-Enmetazobactam: A Systematic Review. Pathogens. 2025. PMID 40872287 · DOI · PMC12389057
- Van Helden SR, Al Musawa M, Bleick CR, Herbin SR, Rybak MJ. Cefepime-taniborbactam: Ushering in the era of metallo-β-lactamase inhibition. Pharmacotherapy. 2025. PMID 40542539 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.