Evidence Hub

Therapeutic potential and safety challenges of antimicrobial peptides and peptidomimetics against ESKAPEE pathogens: a systematic review with quantitative analysis

Mekonen ES, Mishra SK, Urmi UL, Yeshtila YM, Maulvi FA, Kumar N, Willcox MDP

The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2026

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial peptides and peptidomimetics have emerged as promising alternatives to traditional antibiotics for MDR bacterial infections. Their advancement, however, is often limited by toxicity and poor pharmacokinetics. In this review, we apply a rigorous quantitative framework to evaluate the therapeutic balance of potency and safety for these agents, offering new perspectives that extend beyond previous descriptive analyses.

Methods: We systematically searched key biomedical databases (January 2000 to May 2025) for studies reporting antimicrobial potency, cytotoxicity, selectivity index, stability and in vivo efficacy. Bias was assessed using an adapted laboratory animal experimentation quality tool. Data were synthesized using a pooled geometric mean approach to compare therapeutic windows across compound.

Results: Of 136 peptides from 47 studies, natural antimicrobial peptides were most potent in vitro against Gram-negative bacteria but frequently caused significant host toxicity. Limited cytotoxicity data prevented robust selectivity analysis for these natural compounds. Peptidomimetics generally provided a wider safety margin than synthetic peptides, though toxicity was context dependent. Major translational barriers, including protein binding and cation effects, diminished in vivo efficacy. Notably, some rationally designed compounds achieved therapeutic benefit in animal models without acute toxicity, unlike traditional agents such as polymyxin B.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free