Evidence mapPaperPMID 40824337Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025

Eravacycline: evaluation of susceptibility testing methods and activity against multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales and Acinetobacter.

Amélie Kinet-Poleur, Pierre Bogaerts, Isabel Montesinos, Te-Din Huang

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Rise in Carbapenem-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amélie Kinet-PoleurLaboratory Medicine - Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium. amelie.kinet-p@outlook.com.
Pierre BogaertsLaboratory Medicine - Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium.
Isabel MontesinosLaboratory Medicine - Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium.
Te-Din HuangLaboratory Medicine - Microbiology, CHU UCL Namur site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEravacycline is a tetracycline approved for treating intra-abdominal infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. Our study aims to compare two methods for determining eravacycline MIC against Gram-negatives and to evaluate its in vitro activity compared with various antibiotics, particularly last-line agents.

methodsWe performed susceptibility testing of eravacycline against 275 consecutive MDR Gram-negative clinical isolates collected by the Belgian NRC. The tested strains include Enterobacterales (n = 222) and Acinetobacter (n = 53) species, mostly carbapenemase producers. We used consecutively 111 of these strains to perform method comparison. ERV MICs were determined by broth microdilution (BMD) using Sensititre customized panel (ThermoFisher) and by gradient diffusion strip method (Etest Biomérieux).

resultsAccording to the BMD method, 83.3% of Enterobacterales were eravacycline susceptible (using EUCAST 2024 breakpoints for E. coli and FDA breakpoints) and 56.6% of Acinetobacter spp. below the ECOFF. For Enterobacterales, the CA, VMD, MD and EA were 98.4%, 1.64%, 0% and 100% respectively. For A. baumannii, we obtained 90% of CA, 88% of EA, 0% of VMD and 10% of MD. For Enterobacterales, eravacycline and tigecycline exhibited a MIC50 of 0.25 and 0.5 mg/L respectively. Colistin displayed a MIC50 of 0.5 mg/L while cefiderocol showed a MIC50 of 0.5 mg/L. 83.3%, 78.4%, 92.8% and 89.4% of Enterobacterales were eravacycline, tigecycline, colistin and cefiderocol susceptible respectively. For Acinetobacter spp., MIC50 was 0.25 mg/L for eravacycline; 0.5 mg/L for tigecycline; 1 mg/L for colistin and 0.25 mg/L for cefiderocol. 56.6%, 47.2%, 92.5% and 72.7% of Acinetobacter spp. were eravacycline, tigecycline, colistin and cefiderocol susceptible respectively.

conclusionGradient diffusion strip method provides accurate and reproductible eravacycline susceptibility results overall. Eravacycline may be an interesting therapeutical option against MDR Enterobacterales, with activity rate relatively similar to tigecycline and cefiderocol. Against MDR Acinetobacter spp., eravacycline displayed only moderate activity, despite one dilution lower MIC50 than tigecycline.

Indexed as

AcinetobacterEnterobacteriaceaeMicrobial Sensitivity TestsTetracyclinesAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentseravacyclineTetracyclinesActivityAntibiotic susceptibility testingEravacyclineMultidrug-resistant

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.