RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The increasing epidemic of infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria has led to the development of several antibiotic therapies. Owing to the scarcity of head-to-head comparisons of current and emerging antibiotics, the present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in patients with nosocomial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection. METHODS: Two independent researchers systematically searched databases up to August 2022 and included 26 randomised controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The protocol was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42021237798). The frequentist random effects model (R version 3.5.1, netmeta package) was utilized. The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to estimate heterogeneity. The calculated P-score was applied to rank the interventions. Additionally, inconsistencies, publication bias, and subgroup effects were assessed in the present study to avoid bias. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among included antibiotics in terms of clinical response and mortality, probably because most antibiotic trials were designed to be non-inferior. In terms of P-score ranking, carbapenems may be the recommended choice considering both adverse events and clinical responses. On the other hand, for carbapenem-sparing options, ceftolozane-tazobactam was the preferred antibiotic for nosocomial pneumonia; eravacycline, for complicated intra-abdominal infection; and cefiderocol, for complicated urinary tract infection. CONCLUSION: Carbapenems may be preferable options in terms of safety and efficacy for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial complicated infections. However, to preserve the effectiveness of carbapenems, it is important to consider carbapenem-sparing regimens.