Cefiderocol either in monotherapy or combination versus best available therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best treatment for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of patients treated with cefiderocol for CRAB infections, and to compare the efficacy of cefiderocol versus best available therapy (BAT). DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE to screen original reports published up to September 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating 30-day mortality, clinical failure, microbiological failure or rate of adverse drug reactions of patients treated with cefiderocol or BAT. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with infections due to CRAB. INTERVENTIONS: Cefiderocol in monotherapy or in combination with other potentially active agents or BAT. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for observational studies. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: We conducted a meta-analysis pooling risk ratios (RRs) through random effect models. RESULTS: We screened 801 original reports, and 18 studies (2 RCTs, 13 cohort studies and 3 case-series) were included in the analysis, for a total 733 patients treated with cefiderocol, and 473 receiving the BAT. Among patients receiving cefiderocol, the 30-day mortality rate was 42% (95% CI 38-47%), the rate of microbiological failure 48% (95% CI 31-65%), the clinical failure rate 43% (95% CI 32-55%), and the rate of ADRs was 3% (95% CI 1-6%). A lower mortality rate was observed among patients receiving cefiderocol monotherapy as compared to those treated with combination regimens (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43-0.94, p = 0.024). We found a significantly lower mortality rate (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.95, p = 0.02) and a lower rate of ADRs (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.09-0.91, p = 0.03) in the group treated with cefiderocol as compared to BAT. No difference was observed in microbiological and clinical failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our data strengthen the efficacy and safety profile of cefiderocol in CRAB infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".