Evidence Hub

Impact of multisite colonization and comparative microbiological outcomes of colistin-sulbactam vs. colistin-tigecycline in CRAB hospital-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score-matched analysis

Shi-Yu Liao, Lan Shen

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2026

176 participants

Abstract

Background The optimal combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) pneumonia remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the microbiological efficacy, clinical outcomes, and safety of colistin-sulbactam versus colistin-tigecycline regimens in patients with CRAB hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). Methods A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2019 to 2024. Adult patients with culture-confirmed CRAB HAP/VAP receiving either colistin-sulbactam (Group A) or colistin-tigecycline (Group B) for ≥72 hours were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to balance baseline covariates, including APACHE II scores and renal function. The primary endpoint was microbiological eradication at Day 7; secondary endpoints included 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and adverse events. Results Among 176 eligible patients, 42 matched pairs (n=84) were generated. The colistin-sulbactam group achieved significantly higher microbiological eradication rates at Day 7 compared to the colistin-tigecycline group (66.7% vs. 40.5%; P = 0.013). Subgroup analysis revealed that this benefit was particularly pronounced in patients with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strains (OR 4.75; 95% CI 1.58–14.26) and those with multisite colonization. Clinical cure rates were also higher in Group A (59.5% vs. 35.7%; P = 0.029). No significant difference was observed in 28-day all-cause mortality (31.0% vs.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 176 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