Evidence Hub

1578. Treatments for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative (GN) pathogens- a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

Tim Reason, Karan Gill, C. Longshaw, R. McCool, K. Wilson, Sara Lopes

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2020

2,349 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance is a major and growing threat to global public health. Cefiderocol (CFDC) is a new siderophore-cephalosporin with a wide activity spectrum covering all aerobic GN pathogens including all WHO critical priority pathogens, that was recently approved by FDA for the treatment of GN cUTI in susceptible organisms. We aim to understand the relative efficacy and safety of current treatment options for cUTI caused by MDR GN pathogens. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify all relevant trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial regimens, for the treatment of GN pathogens in cUTI. Outcomes of interest included clinical cure and microbiological eradication (ME) at time of cure (TOC) and sustained follow up (SFU), and safety. Evidence networks were constructed using data for outcomes of interest and analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using NMA methods outlined by the NICE decision support unit using the netmeta package in R. Results A total of 5 studies, 6 interventions and 2,349 randomised patients were included in the final analysis. Interventions included CFDC, imipenem-cilastatin (IPM-CIL), ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ/AVI), doripenem (DOR), levofloxacin and ceftolozane-tazobactam (CEF/TAZ). Trials included predominantly Enterobacterales, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa and very few Acinetobacter baumannii. The patient population presented some clinical differences across trials, which were not…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,349 participants or records.

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