Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy and safety of colistin-based and alternative antibiotic regimens for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Ajaree Rayanakorn, Thitiya Lukkunaprasit, Shaun Lee Wen Huey, Wasan Katip

International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2026

1,760 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of colistin monotherapy, colistin-based combination regimens, and alternative antibiotic strategies within a unified analytical framework for multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative infections. METHODS: Systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to July 15, 2025. A network meta-analysis integrating direct and indirect evidence was performed to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 17 randomized controlled trials with 1760 patients were included. Beta-lactam (BL) therapy combined with a beta-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared with colistin monotherapy (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99; very low certainty evidence). Colistin-based combination therapies, particularly combinations of colistin with BL/BLIs, achieved higher clinical cure (RR 4.43, 95% CI 1.44-13.66; very low certainty evidence) and microbiological eradication rates (RR 9.50, 95% CI 1.34-67.27; very low certainty evidence) than colistin monotherapy. In terms of safety, BL/BLI-based regimens were associated with significantly lower risks of nephrotoxicity compared with colistin-based regimens. CONCLUSION: Beta-lactam therapy combined with a beta-lactamase inhibitor was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality while colistin-based combination therapies particularly…

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: 1,760 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