依拉维辛(ERV)治疗革兰氏阴性病原体感染的有效性和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Zehua Chen,Weijia Sun,Yulong Chi,Beibei Liang,Yun Cai
{"title":"依拉维辛(ERV)治疗革兰氏阴性病原体感染的有效性和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Zehua Chen,Weijia Sun,Yulong Chi,Beibei Liang,Yun Cai","doi":"10.1080/14787210.2024.2397663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nEravacycline (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.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe 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.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThree 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.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nFurther studies are warranted to investigate the safety and efficacy of ERV monotherapy or combination therapy in critically ill patients.","PeriodicalId":12213,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of eravacycline (ERV) in treating infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zehua Chen,Weijia Sun,Yulong Chi,Beibei Liang,Yun Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14787210.2024.2397663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nEravacycline (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.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nWe 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.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThree 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.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nFurther studies are warranted to investigate the safety and efficacy of ERV monotherapy or combination therapy in critically ill patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2024.2397663\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2024.2397663","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景伊伐环素(ERV)是一种新型合成氟环素抗生素,对病原体具有广谱抗菌功效。本研究旨在探讨 ERV 治疗革兰氏阴性病原体(GNPs)感染的有效性和安全性。方法我们对截至 2023 年 9 月的 PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、Web of Science 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 进行了全面检索。结果纳入了 3 项随机对照试验、7 项队列研究和 2 项病例报告。在临床治愈率(OR = 0.84,95% CI = 0.59-1.19)、微生物根除率(OR = 0.69,95% CI = 0.36-1.33)和死亡率(OR = 1.66,95% CI = 0.81-3.41)方面,ERV 与对比试验之间没有明显的统计学差异。不过,与对照组相比,ERV 的不良反应率明显更高(OR = 1.55,95% CI = 1.21-1.99)。此外,队列研究报告的临床治愈率为 73.2%(RCT 为 88.8%),AE 率为 4.5%(RCT 为 38.3%),死亡率为 16.2%(RCT 为 1.5%)。RCT研究中的患者接受的是ERV单药治疗,而队列研究中几乎一半的患者接受的是ERV与其他抗生素联合治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of eravacycline (ERV) in treating infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy (ISSN 1478-7210) provides expert reviews on therapeutics and diagnostics in the treatment of infectious disease. Coverage includes antibiotics, drug resistance, drug therapy, infectious disease medicine, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral approaches, and diagnostic tests.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信