Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is among the greatest threats to global healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2050 ten million deaths will be attributed to AMR annually. In response, the WHO has implemented antibiotic stewardship programs which focus on optimizing antibiotic use and raise, amongst others, the issue of the preferred method of intravenous antibiotic administration. Various studies have attempted to answer this question with conflicting results. REVIEW: This review examined several studies assessing extended/continuous infusion compared to intermittent infusion of three beta-lactams: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem. The findings and conclusions of each study were summarized and compared to one another to provide a general overview of the current evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that continuous/extended infusion showed a greater clinical benefit in highly critical cases, namely sepsis and febrile neutropenia, compared to intermittent infusion. Additionally, in cases where a pathogen was identified, continuous/extended infusion showed superiority. Nonetheless, high-quality studies with larger samples are needed to demonstrate the difference between these two modes of infusion in a way that would better inform guidelines and policies, aiding in the fight against AMR.