Historical collection · First published Nov 20, 2024; added to EM Weekly Oct 27, 2026. This retrospective summary may be superseded by later evidence or guidance.

← All articles
Randomized trialNew England Journal of Medicine

Antibiotic Treatment for 7 versus 14 Days in Patients with Bloodstream Infections

First online Nov 20, 2024On EM Weekly Oct 27, 2026Discovered Oct 27, 2026AI-generated Not yet human-reviewed

Summary

BALANCE randomized 3,608 hospitalized patients with bloodstream infection to 7 or 14 days of antibiotics. Ninety-day mortality was 14.5% versus 16.1% (difference −1.6 percentage points; 95.7% CI −4.0 to 0.8), meeting the prespecified 4-point noninferiority margin. More than half were in an ICU at enrollment.

Why it matters

Supports avoiding an automatic 14-day course for eligible bacteremia once the pathogen, source and clinical course are established. It does not justify shorter treatment for excluded infections.

Study at a glance

Design
Randomized trial
Population
Hospitalized adults with bloodstream infection at 74 hospitals in seven countries.
Sample size
3608
Intervention
Seven days of antibiotics; agent, dose and route selected clinically.
Comparator
Fourteen days of antibiotics.
Primary endpoint
All-cause mortality by 90 days after bloodstream infection diagnosis.

Main findings

  • Mortality: 261 patients (14.5%) versus 286 (16.1%).
  • Per-protocol risk difference: −2.0 percentage points (95% CI −4.5 to 0.6).

Limitations

Severe immunosuppression, S aureus bacteremia and foci requiring prolonged therapy were excluded. Treatment exceeded assignment in 23.1% of the 7-day group; noninferiority is not proof that all durations are equivalent.

Read the primary source

Full text: Abstract available; full text paywalled.

Original source

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2404991

PMID: 39565030

Source retrieved Oct 27, 2026. Historical backfill: first-online date verified from the PubMed electronic publication record. Abstract reviewed; full text unavailable. This is historical evidence, not a new 2026 publication.

Corrections & review history

No corrections recorded. Human review: not yet human-reviewed.