Evidence Hub

Clinical experience with eravacycline-based combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia: a prospective observational case series

Ying Xiao, Yu Cheng, Xiaohong Xu, Hong-Qiang Qiu, Xuanxi Huang, Zhiqiang Xue, Meili Cai, Qing Wang et al.

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2026

14 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Objective This study was conducted to investigate the clinical response, safety, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of eravacycline-based combination therapies in patients with pulmonary infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). Methods A prospective observational case series was conducted on patients with CRAB pneumonia treated at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between February 2024 and August 2025. Prior to treatment, eravacycline minimum inhibitory concentration were determined. Patients received eravacycline-based combination therapy according to their susceptibility results. Data on clinical responses, microbiological clearance, adverse events, and 28-day all-cause mortality were collected. Eravacycline blood concentrations were measured in a subset of patients. Results Twenty-two patients with CRAB pneumonia (21 with ventilator-associated pneumonia) were enrolled; all had a Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score >6. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were 13.77 and 6.23, respectively. All CRAB isolates were susceptible to eravacycline (ChiCAST breakpoint ≤1 mg/L). The clinical response rate, microbiological clearance rate, and 28-day mortality were 72.7%, 86.4%, and 13.6%, respectively. Two patients exhibited hypofibrinogenemia, considered an adverse drug reaction related to eravacycline. No associated bleeding events or other adverse…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done 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. Reported size: 14 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