Cefepime 2g / Enmetazobactam 500mg powder for solution for infusion vials
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Cefepime + Enmetazobactam
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Cefepime + Enmetazobactam on the MHRA register
Exblifep 2g/0.5g powder for concentrate for solution for infusion vials
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 21 · Randomised trials: 6 · 1998–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
E. Qian, J. Casey, A. Wright, et al.
JAMA, 2023
Lorenzo Onorato, Ilaria De Luca, Annabella Salvati, et al.
Infection, 2024
K. Kaye, A. Belley, P. Barth, et al.
JAMA, 2022
- Urinary Tract Infections
- Pyelonephritis
- Anti-Bacterial Agents
M. E. Falagas, Laura T. Romanos, Dimitrios S. Kontogiannis, et al.
Pathogens, 2025
- Gram-Negative Bacteria
- Cephalosporins
- Barbiturates
Wagenlehner F, Caballero VR, Maheshwari V, et al.
2025
- Urinary Tract Infections
- Pyelonephritis
- Anti-Bacterial Agents
Aim: Compared with uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), complicated UTIs (cUTIs) including acute pyelonephritis (AP) present with significant morbidity, a higher risk of treatment failure and typically require longer courses of treatment, or alternative antibiotics. The emergence of drug-resistant organisms represents a considerable challenge in the treatment of patients with cUTIs/AP and has limited antibiotic options. Carbapenems are considered the current last line of therapy, however, carbapenem resistance represents a growing problem. Although several established and novel treatment options are available, direct comparative evidence is lacking. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by systematic literature review of Embase®, MEDLINE® and Cochrane databases (database inception to 15th June 2022). Relevant conference proceedings (2020-2022) were also reviewed. Following feasibility assessment to verify network connectivity at an overall level, outcome specific networks were prepared. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed (using R version 4.2.1) to determine the relative efficacy of various treatments for cUTI/AP, including cefepime + enmetazobactam. Convergence was assessed by visual inspection of trace plots. The accuracy of the posterior estimates was assessed using the Monte Carlo error for each parameter. Published study results were included in the synthesis of the relative risk (RR) of efficacy end points, using a logit link with binomial likelihood distribution. Results: Feasibility assessment was conducted for 40 RCTs identified, to assess the viability of constructing a network of interlinked RCTs. Of those, 28 studies were included in the master NMA network. A fixed effects model (FEM) was selected due to low statistical heterogeneity, according to I2 values. For composite outcome at test of cure (TOC), ceftolozane + tazobactam, cefepime + enmetazobactam, cefiderocol, levofloxacin and plazomicin demonstrated significantly higher RRs versus carbapenems. For microbiological eradication at TOC, cefepime + enmetazobactam, plazomicin, cefiderocol, fosfomycin, meropenem + vaborbactam and ceftazidime + avibactam demonstrated significantly higher RRs versus carbapenems. RRs for cefepime + enmetazobactam were also significantly higher versus several established and novel treatment options for composite outcome, microbiological eradication and clinical cure. Conclusion: Against the backdrop of increasing bacterial resistance, these findings suggest that cefepime + enmetazobactam may represent an effective carbapenem-sparing treatment option in patients with cUTI including AP.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Maki DG
2023
- Urinary Tract Infections
- Pyelonephritis
- Triazoles
V. H. Tam
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2002
Kenneth S. Thomson, Ellen Smith Moland
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2001
Susan J. Keam
Drugs, 2024
- Urinary Tract Infections
- Anti-Bacterial Agents
- Drug Approval
T. Bhowmick, Rafael Cantón, F. Pea, et al.
Future Microbiology, 2025
- Enterobacteriaceae
- Enterobacteriaceae Infections
- Cephalosporins
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.