作者：Lu; Shushu; Zhang; Jingchun; Tang; Hui...infectiontigecyclineisepamicin
摘要：Background: Due to extensive use of antibiotics, multidrug resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii (A.b) infection has become one of the major challenges in clinic, which is difficult to treat and have a high mortality rate. Based on this, we must take pro active measures against antimicrobial resistance by improving the efficacy. To provide a high-quality clinical evidence, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of three anti-infection therapeutic regimens for the treatment of multidrug resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii(MRAB) infection. Methods: A meta-analysis of 36 randomized controlled trials, comprising approximately 3014 patients, was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of three anti-infection therapeutic regimens for the treatment of MRAB infection. The clinical response rate and microbiological response rate between cefbperazone-sulbactam group and tigecycline plus cefbperazone-sulbactam group were RR=1.33, 95% CI= 1.27-1.39 and RR=1.72, 95% CI=1.55-1.90, respectively;Cefoperazone-sulbactam group and tigecycline plus isepamicin group were RR=1.29, 95% CI=1.19-1.39 and RR=1.59, 95% CI=1.37-1.84, respectively. Results: There was no significant difference between tigecycline plus cefbperazone-sulbactam group and tigecycline plus isepamicin group in the clinical response rate or microbiological response rate. Neither was there any adverse events (AEs) among the three regimens. Conclusion: Our finding suggested that tigecycline combined with cefbperazone-sulbactam or isepamicin may be performed with more efficacy than cefoperazone-sulbactam monotherapy in MRAB infections treatment.
注：因版权方要求，不能公开全文，如需全文，请咨询杂志社
