MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402521952 · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09899-5

Comparison of cefiderocol and colistin-based regimens for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

2024· review· en· W4402521952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yangyang Zhan, Wenchao Mao, Changyun Zhao, Difan Lu, Changqin Chen, Weihang Hu, Qi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province
KeywordsColistinAcinetobacter baumanniiMedical microbiologyMeta-analysisCarbapenemMedicineCephalosporinAcinetobacterIntensive care medicineBiologyInternal medicineMicrobiologyPseudomonas aeruginosaAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are multiple antibiotic regimens for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) in clinical practice. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol-based regimens and colistin-based regimens in the treatment of CRAB infections. METHODS: Two authors independently searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from their establishment to April 15, 2024, to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies, and compared the clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol-based regimens and colistin-based regimens in the treatment of CRAB infections. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and subgroup analysis was conducted on the basis of the site of infection and the risk of bias in the studies. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was then conducted. RESULTS: Six observational studies were included, with 251 cases in the cefiderocol-based group and 372 cases in the colistin-based group. Compared to the colistin-based group, the cefiderocol-based group had lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92, P = 0.01) and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.95, P = 0.03). However, for the 14-day and 28-day mortality rates, there was no statistically significant difference between two groups. According to the subgroup analysis, among patients with bloodstream infection (BSI), the cefiderocol-based group had lower all-cause mortality, but it did not reduce the mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) patients. The result of TSA showed that our conclusions are reliable. There was no significant statistical difference in the microbiological cure rate, clinical cure rate, or duration of hospitalization. In addition, the cefiderocol-based group did not have an increased incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the colistin-based regimens, the cefiderocol-based regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality in CRAB-infected patients, especially for patients with BSI. However, they did not show any advantages in terms of the clinical cure rate or microbiological cure rate, nor did they reduce the incidence of AKI. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023487213.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207