Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2026
Effectiveness and safety of eravacycline-based regimens for resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Mohammad Shahd, Awwad Eman, Hajjar Ayah, Alzunaydi Sulaiman, Al-Hammadi Ahmed Ak, Almangour Thamer A, Bassetti Matteo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Acinetobacter baumannii, particularly multidrug-resistant strains, is a high-burden nosocomial pathogen with limited therapeutic options. Eravacycline is increasingly used off-label despite limited supporting clinical evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of eravacycline versus non-eravacycline-based regimens in adults with resistant A. baumannii infections.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for studies evaluating eravacycline regimens in hospitalized adults with A. baumannii infection. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Data were analyzed using R statistical software.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies encompassing 462 patients were included. Populations consisted predominantly of older adults, with respiratory tract infections representing the most common source of infection (77.6%). Carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii accounted for 84.4% of evaluable cases. No statistically significant differences were observed between eravacycline and non-eravacycline-based regimens in all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.46-2.47), clinical cure (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.77-1.07), or microbiological eradication (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.37). Complementary single-arm pooled estimates among eravacycline-treated cohorts were favorable.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence base for eravacycline effectiveness in resistant A. baumannii infections and supports its consideration when preferred regimens are not feasible; adequately powered randomized trials are needed to define optimal positioning.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for studies evaluating eravacycline regimens in hospitalized adults with A. baumannii infection. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Data were analyzed using R statistical software.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies encompassing 462 patients were included. Populations consisted predominantly of older adults, with respiratory tract infections representing the most common source of infection (77.6%). Carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii accounted for 84.4% of evaluable cases. No statistically significant differences were observed between eravacycline and non-eravacycline-based regimens in all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.46-2.47), clinical cure (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.77-1.07), or microbiological eradication (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.37). Complementary single-arm pooled estimates among eravacycline-treated cohorts were favorable.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence base for eravacycline effectiveness in resistant A. baumannii infections and supports its consideration when preferred regimens are not feasible; adequately powered randomized trials are needed to define optimal positioning.