Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2024
Efficacy and safety of eravacycline (ERV) in treating infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Zehua, Sun Weijia, Chi Yulong, Liang Beibei, Cai Yun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Eravacycline (ERV) is a novel synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic with broad-spectrum antibacterial efficacy against pathogens. This study sought to investigate ERV's effectiveness and safety in treating Gram-negative pathogens (GNPs) infections.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to September 2023. Included in the review were studies assessing the efficacy or safety of ERV in treating GNP infections.
RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials, seven cohort studies, and two case reports were included. There was no statistically significant difference between ERV and comparators in clinical cure (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.59-1.19), microbiologic eradication (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.36-1.33), and mortality (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.81-3.41). However, a significantly higher rate of adverse events with ERV was observed compared to the control group (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.21-1.99). Additionally, cohort studies reported a clinical cure rate of 73.2% (88.8% in RCTs), an AE rate of 4.5% (38.3% in RCTs), and mortality of 16.2% (1.5% in RCTs). Patients in RCTs received ERV monotherapy, whereas almost half of the patients in cohort studies were treated with ERV in combination with other antibiotics.
CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are warranted to investigate the safety and efficacy of ERV monotherapy or combination therapy in critically ill patients.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to September 2023. Included in the review were studies assessing the efficacy or safety of ERV in treating GNP infections.
RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials, seven cohort studies, and two case reports were included. There was no statistically significant difference between ERV and comparators in clinical cure (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.59-1.19), microbiologic eradication (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.36-1.33), and mortality (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.81-3.41). However, a significantly higher rate of adverse events with ERV was observed compared to the control group (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.21-1.99). Additionally, cohort studies reported a clinical cure rate of 73.2% (88.8% in RCTs), an AE rate of 4.5% (38.3% in RCTs), and mortality of 16.2% (1.5% in RCTs). Patients in RCTs received ERV monotherapy, whereas almost half of the patients in cohort studies were treated with ERV in combination with other antibiotics.
CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are warranted to investigate the safety and efficacy of ERV monotherapy or combination therapy in critically ill patients.