Evidence Hub

Comparative effectiveness of ertapenem versus other empirical antibiotics in elderly patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection: a real-world inverse probability of treatment weighting study

Sun Y, Guo Y, Cui H, Jiang Y, Yu Q

Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025

609 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elderly adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) represent a functionally immunocompromised population due to immunosenescence, multimorbidity, and frailty. Optimizing empirical antibiotic therapy in this group is essential to improve outcomes while minimizing unnecessary broad-spectrum antimicrobial exposure and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) selection pressure. Ertapenem is a once-daily carbapenem with favorable pharmacological properties, yet contemporary real-world comparative data in older adults are limited.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, real-world comparative-effectiveness study of hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years with cIAI at a tertiary academic medical center from 2019 to 2025. Eligible patients received empirical monotherapy with ertapenem, meropenem, cefoperazone-sulbactam, or moxifloxacin for ≥72 hours. A multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to balance baseline covariates across the four regimens. The primary outcome was clinical cure or improvement. Secondary outcomes included all-cause in-hospital mortality, infection-related mortality, intra-abdominal infection-related mortality, duration of antibiotic treatment, and length of hospitalization. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted by age group (65-70, 71-80, ≥81 years) and infection source (gastrointestinal vs non-gastrointestinal).

RESULTS: A total of 609 patients met eligibility criteria: 129…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 609 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free