Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of polymyxin B sulfate versus colistin sulfate in ICU patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a multicenter, propensity score-matched, real-world cohort study

Wei Bu, Chengyu Wang, Yuan Wu, Peng Zhang, Neng-Fang Zhang, Ying Han, Xiaona Xu, Sha Li et al.

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2025

190 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of colistin sulfate (CS) in clinical settings in China over recent years, supported by several studies demonstrating its clinical efficacy, there remains a lack of comparative data on the efficacy and safety of polymyxin B sulfate (PMB) versus CS, specifically for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB)-caused nosocomial pneumonia. To compare the efficacy and safety of PMB and CS in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by CRAB. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study, including patients diagnosed with CRAB-caused nosocomial pneumonia and treated with intravenous PMB or CS in the ICU of the study hospitals between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2024. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to adjust for potential baseline confounders between cohorts. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox logistic regression analyses were performed to identify for factors potentially influencing the clinical outcomes and adverse events. Following matching, a total of 190 patients were analyzed. There was no statistical significance in the rates of clinical success, microbiological eradication and 28-day mortality between the PMB and CS cohorts. While the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hepatotoxicity were comparable in both cohorts, but dermal toxicity was significantly higher in patients receiving PMB compared to those receiving CS (18.9% vs. 0%, P < 0.05). Among all the patients,…

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: 190 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