Real-World Evaluation of Eravacycline Utilization for Infections Caused by Difficult-to-Treat Pathogens

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Eravacycline is a fluorocycline with activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) and difficult-to-treat (DTR) pathogens, but real-world outcome data are lacking for the treatment of infections caused by these organisms. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eravacycline for infections caused by MDR and/or DTR organisms. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study of adult patients receiving eravacycline for at least 72 hours for MDR or DTR organisms. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 60-day relapse, 30-day readmission, and adverse drug events (ADEs). Results: A total of 17 patients were included in the analysis. The cohort had a high baseline mortality risk (median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5). Osteoarticular infections were the most common indication (52.9%). The most frequently isolated pathogens were Enterococcus spp. and Enterobacterales spp. (58.9% each). Most infections were polymicrobial. Eravacycline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were available in only 47% of cases, and the median time to treatment initiation was 6 days after culture collection. Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 17.6% of patients. Among survivors, 60-day relapse and 30-day readmission were low (6% each). The ADEs occurred in 35% of patients but led to no discontinuations. Conclusions: In this cohort of severely ill patients with complex, predominantly polymicrobial MDR and DTR infections, eravacycline demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy results despite delays from index culture to initiation of targeted therapy. These data suggest eravacycline may be a viable treatment option for infections caused by MDR and DTR organisms.

Keywords

eravacycline antimicrobial stewardship antimicrobial resistance

Introduction

Multidrug-resistant (MDR), defined as organisms resistant to at least 1 antibiotic from 3 different antibiotic classes, and difficult-to-treat (DTR) organisms, defined as organisms that show nonsusceptibility to all first-line antimicrobial agents, represent an escalating public health crisis, leading to significant morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Management and outcomes for these infections are often hampered due to resistance to empiric agents and logistical constraints associated with expanded susceptibility testing.³ This problem is exacerbated when MDR or DTR organisms present as part of complex polymicrobial infections as commonly seen in deep-seated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) or osteoarticular infections. Given the complexity and deep-seated nature of these infections, they often require multiple antimicrobials for prolonged durations, necessitating outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and/or requiring agents with suboptimal risks of adverse drug events (ADEs).⁴ As such, there is a growing need for antimicrobial regimens that offer simplified dosing, improved safety, and efficacy against resistant pathogens to facilitate antimicrobial stewardship and improve patient adherence.

Eravacycline is a fully synthetic fluorocycline approved for use in complicated IAIs.^5
-8 Beyond labeled indications, real-world studies have demonstrated efficacy in other, non-urinary sites as well.^9
-11 Eravacycline exhibits broad in vitro activity against Gram-positive cocci (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus [VRE]), anaerobes, and MDR Gram-negative rods (GNRs). Furthermore, it is attractive as an antimicrobial stewardship consolidation option for complex polymicrobial infections due to activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CREs), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and other non-lactose fermenting GNRs such as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Pharmacokinetically, eravacycline has a favorable profile with an elimination half-life of roughly 20 hours, allowing for daily infusions in the outpatient setting.^8,9,12,13 Despite these attributes, the clinical role of eravacycline remains a subject of debate due to its high volume of distribution (321L).

Current guidelines and guidance recommendations reflect a lack of clinical evidence rather than definitive evidence of eravacycline failure. While patients with these infections have not been excluded from previous trials, MDR pathogens have not constituted a large majority of these cohorts. Given the clinical, stewardship, and practical advantages offered by expanded eravacycline use in this patient population, additional real-world data are required to validate its efficacy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eravacycline for the treatment of infections caused by culture-confirmed MDR or DTR organisms.

Methodology

Study Cohort and Setting

This was a retrospective, observational study at a large academic medical center of adult patients treated with eravacycline between January 1, 2017, and November 1, 2024. Data were collected and analyzed by infectious diseases (ID) trained pharmacists. The study was reviewed and approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB) and granted exemption with a waiver of informed consent due to its minimal risk to participants and retrospective nature.

Patients

Patients were included if they were ≥18 years of age and received eravacycline for at least 72 hours for the treatment of a culture-confirmed infection caused by an MDR (defined as resistance to at least 3 classes of antimicrobials) or DTR (defined as CRAB, VRE, or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole-resistant S. maltophilia) organism. Exclusion criteria included infection caused by non-MDR or DTR organisms, mortality within 72 hours of eravacycline initiation, or receipt of less than 72 hours of eravacycline treatment.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint of this study was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 60-day microbiological relapse, defined as re-growth of the same organism, and 30-day all-cause readmission from the end of eravacycline therapy, microbiological eradication, and adverse drug effects (ADEs). The ADEs in this study were limited to suspected antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and elevations in liver function tests (LFTs) were defined as an increase to 2 times the baseline value at any point during therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were utilized for all variables. Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviation (SD) or medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) based on data distribution. Categorical data were reported as frequencies and percentages.

Results

Demographics

A total of 19 patients were screened, and 17 met the inclusion criteria for final analysis. The cohort had a high burden of comorbid conditions, with a median age of 55 years and a median Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) of 5 (IQR = 4-6). Baseline severity of illness was variable, with a median Pitt Bacteremia Score of 1 (IQR = 0-5). Source of infection was determined by site of microbiologic testing and subsequent growth of organism(s) leading to eravacycline therapy. The most common sources of infection were osteoarticular (52.9%), followed by IAI (23.5%) and respiratory (17.6%) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Information.

Variable	Population (n = 17)
Age, median (IQR)	55 (47.4-60.5)
Male, n (%)	11 (64.7)
Weight, kg, median (IQR)	78 (66.2-90)
Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), median (IQR)	5 (4-6)
Chronic kidney disease, n (%)	9 (52.9)
Liver disease, n (%)	3 (17.6)
Cancer, n (%)	2 (11.8)
Pitt Bacteremia Score, median (IQR)	1 (0-5)
Mechanical ventilation, n (%)	4 (23.5)
Source
Osteoarticular, n (%)	9 (52.9)
Intra-abdominal, n (%)	4 (23.5)
Respiratory, n (%)	3 (17.6)
Endovascular, n (%)	1 (5.9)
Eravacycline use within 72 hours, n (%)	3 (17.6)
Duration of therapy, days, median (IQR)	16 (8.1-40.1)

Microbiology

Most infections were polymicrobial (70.6%) and nosocomial (52.9%), defined as index culture collection >48 hours after admission (Tables 1 and 2). The most frequently isolated pathogens were VRE and Enterobacterales spp. (58.9% each), followed by Acinetobacter baumanii and S. maltophilia (23.5% each). Among the CRE organisms, 2 had confirmed carbapenemase enzymatic resistance patterns, including Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) or a New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM) identified. Two patients had organisms with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), CTX-M genes detected via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing without corresponding carbapenemases. No enzymatic resistance was detected in the other CRE organisms. Eravacycline susceptibilities were available in 47% of isolates, with a mean minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 0.5 ± 0.25 µg/mL. Notably, all tested CRE isolates showed MICs below the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved susceptibility breakpoint of ≤0.5 µg/mL.¹⁴ While there are no established susceptibility breakpoints for A. baumanii or S. maltophilia, the MIC₉₀ ranges in existing literature have been described at 0.5 to 2 µg/mL and 1 to 4 µg/mL, respectively.^15,16 Three of the isolates tested for eravacycline susceptibility in this review were CRAB. Two of the isolates had an MIC of 0.25 µg/mL, and 1 was 1 µg/mL (Table 2). Of note, none of the S. maltophilia isolates had MICs available.

Table 2.

Pathogen Information.

Variable	Population (n = 17)
Polymicrobial infections	12 (70.6%)
Organism
Enterobacterales, n (%)	10 (58.8)
Acinetobacter spp., n (%)	4 (23.5)
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, n (%)	4 (23.5)
Enterococcus spp., n (%)	10 (58.8)
Eravacycline susceptibilities tested, n (%)	8 (47.1)
Eravacycline MIC
Enterobacterales, mean (SD)	0.5 (0.1)
Acinetobacter spp., mean (SD)	1.5 (0.4)

Treatment and Source Control

All patients included received a median weight-based dose of eravacycline of 1 mg/kg every 12 hours. There were no notable drug-drug interactions among patients receiving eravacycline. The median duration of therapy was 16 days (IQR = 8.1-40.1). Of note, there was a significant delay between initiation of eravacycline and index culture collection, with a median time to start of 6 days (IQR = 3.4-9.3) (Table 1). Definitive source control was only achieved in 4 (23.5%) patients. This may have been driven largely by inoperable infections, desire for medical management, or inability to achieve source control despite surgical intervention.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of 30-day all-cause mortality occurred in 3 patients (17.6%). Among patients eligible for 60-day relapse, who demonstrated culture clearance and no 30-day mortality, 1 patient (7.7%) had infection relapse. Similarly, only 2 patients (18.2%) were re-admitted within 30 days of the end of eravacycline treatment (Table 3).

Table 3.

Outcomes.

Outcome	Population (n = 17)
30-Day mortality, n (%)	3 (17.6)
60-Day relapse, n (%)	1 (7.7)
30-Day readmission, n (%)	2 (18.2)
Any adverse drug event, n (%)	6 (35.3)
LFT elevation, n (%)	5 (29.4)
Diarrhea, n (%)	4 (23.5)
Repeat cultures collected, n (%)	10 (58.8)
Repeat cultures positive, n (%)	5 (50)

Of the 10 patients with repeat cultures collected, 5 (50%) demonstrated microbiological eradication. Adequate surgical source control was achieved in only 4 (23.5%) patients. Notably, none of the patients in whom the pathogen was not eradicated achieved adequate source control.

Adverse drug events occurred in 6 patients (35.3%). These events comprised of elevations in LFT (29.4%) and diarrhea (23.5%). No patients discontinued therapy due to ADEs (Table 3).

Discussion

This study represents one of few focused evaluations of eravacycline specifically targeting infections caused by confirmed MDR or DTR organisms. Where clinicians are often forced to rely on drug combinations with significant adverse effects as “best available therapy,” our findings offer insights into eravacycline performance in complex and DTR patient populations.

The high volume of distribution has led to some questions on the clinical utility of eravacycline for infections such as bloodstream infections (BSIs), despite real-world data demonstrating clinical effectiveness including a pooled analysis of bacteremic patients from the IGNITE 1 and IGNITE 4 trials.¹⁷ The 2024 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections recommends eravacycline for infections aside from bloodstream or urinary tract infections caused by CRE only when β-lactams are not available or unable to be tolerated due to lack of clinical evidence.¹⁸ However, the guidance is even more reserved in the setting of CRAB and S. maltophilia, where IDSA recommends minocycline or tigecycline over eravacycline, citing limited clinical evidence of 1 retrospective analysis of CRAB pneumonia showing longer durations of mechanical ventilation and higher 30-day mortality compared to alternative regimens.¹⁹ However, these data may be confounded by baseline differences in bacteremia incidence, and multiple other retrospective analyses have found favorable outcomes associated with eravacycline use in patients with CRAB.^10,11,20
-22 Similarly, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines currently do not recommend eravacycline for CRE or CRAB, citing the lack of clinical data supporting its use, despite its enhanced in vitro activity.^23
-25

The primary finding of a 17.6% 30-day mortality rate, while higher than some existing literature, may still support eravacycline use due to the study cohort’s high-risk of death at baseline, up to 32% based on median CCI.²⁶

Furthermore, the present study offers several important insights into the clinical utility of eravacycline in a large academic medical center. First, this cohort had a higher percentage of isolates with eravacycline MIC results, especially for Gram-negative organisms. At the study institution, eravacycline is not part of the routine antimicrobial susceptibility report and is only run by request from the ID service. This delay in susceptibility testing, combined with the salvage nature of eravacycline therapy in this patient population, is likely to explain the delay in therapy for patients included in the study and may signal a predisposition to poor outcomes. Due to the potent in vitro activity of eravacyline against Enterococcus spp., susceptibilities were not routinely tested likely explaining the low rate of MIC availability. Like other available surveillance data, we found high rates of in vitro activity of eravacycline for CRE and CRAB. Another strength of this study was the inclusion of only infections caused by MDR or DTR organisms, a plurality of which were polymicrobial in nature. The safety and efficacy of eravacycline have previously been evaluated in the real-world setting in which MDR or DTR organisms comprised only a small percentage of infections. A study by Patino et al²⁷ evaluated clinical outcomes of eravacycline for infections caused by MDR pathogens, but to our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of eravacycline combining MIC data and clinical outcomes in infections caused by MDR or DTR organisms.

Interestingly, the most frequently encountered infectious source was osteoarticular which has been underrepresented in past clinical trials and real-world data.^5,6,10 This was followed by IAI which is the FDA-labeled indication for eravacycline. While tetracycline derivatives have historically shown good bone penetration and variable joint concentrations, there is limited information on newer generation fluorocyclines.²⁸ The relatively low rate of infection relapses (7.7%), particularly given that definitive source control was achieved in a minority (23.5%) of patients, our data add support to eravacycline use in osteoarticular infections.

However, the results may necessitate a nuanced view given the cohort complexity and predominance of polymicrobial infections. While eravacycline acted as the backbone for MDR and DTR organisms, the contribution of concomitant antimicrobials cannot be fully excluded. Furthermore, there was a median delay of 6 days from index culture to initiation of eravacycline and low rates of definitive source control. The observed mortality rate likely reflects these factors, rather than a failure of the molecule itself. This aligns with the data presented by Kunz Coyne et al,²⁹ who demonstrated delayed initiation as an independent predictor of poor outcomes in immunocompromised hosts.

Like other real-world analyses of eravacycline utilization, the observed ADE rate was low and was dominated by diarrhea and LFT elevations, both of which are often observed in hospitalized patients and are multifactorial in nature (Table 3).

There are several limitations to this study which limit generalizability and ability to draw robust conclusions, primarily stemming from the small sample size, non-comparative design, and retrospective nature. As such, there was a heavy reliance on documentation in the medical record which may not have comprehensively described treatment rationale and introduced confounders to various outcomes. Similarly, the single-center retrospective design limited comprehensive follow-up, as readmissions or regimen changes managed at outside medical institutions could not be captured. Additional limitations of low rates of source control and significant delays in initiating eravacycline therapy may have impacted outcomes beyond efficacy of the antibiotic. Given the significant delay in eravacycline initiation, we were unable to capture or quantify the impact of preceding antimicrobial therapy or patient clinical trajectory. Likewise, the delay in initiation of eravacycline therapy may have been due to its use in a salvage nature. As such, patients in this cohort may have been predisposed to poor outcomes such as mortality, relapse, and multifactorial ADEs such as transaminitis and diarrhea due to delays in therapy. Another important limitation was the lack of consistent eravacycline susceptibility testing, which may reflect real-world practice gaps and be a cause for treatment delay, resulting in uncertainty between in vitro activity and clinical outcomes. Finally, the heterogenic nature of infectious sources and variable rates of source control may confound the results. Furthermore, the exclusion of patients who met a mortality outcome within 72 hours of initiation of eravacycline introduces both immortal time and selection bias, possibly precluding a direct causal assessment of drug efficacy. Future research is needed to evaluate outcomes in complex infections as an initial therapeutic option.

Conclusions

In the present study of complex patients with MDR and DTR infections, eravacycline demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous literature and achieved clinical stability in most patients despite significant delays in therapy initiation and limited source control. This preliminary, observational data may signal a potential role for eravacycline in the management of complex osteoarticular infections caused by resistant pathogens, indicating the need for further investigation through prospective studies. In addition, while the data support robust in vitro activity, more frequent utilization of susceptibility testing in patients with CRE, CRAB, and S. maltophilia may reduce the time to appropriate therapy and further improve outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

ORCID iD

Daniel T. Anderson

Ethical Considerations

This study was reviewed and determined to be exempt by the Augusta University Institutional Review Board (2261393-1).

Consent to Participate

The requirement for informed consent to participate has been waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

DTA and JE contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing – review & editing. DTA contributed to data curation, formal analysis, investigation, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, and writing – original draft.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statements

Data may be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. antimicrobial resistance facts and stats, 2024. Accessed April 30, 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/antimicrobial-resistance/data-research/facts-stats/index.html

Naghavi

Vollset

Ikuta

, et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance 1990-2021: a systematic analysis with forecasts to 2050. Lancet. 2024;404(10459):1199-1226. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01867-1

De la Rosa-Riestra

Perez-Crespo

PMM

Rodriguez

MRTP

, et al. Mortality impact of further delays in active targeted antibiotic therapy in bacteraemic patients that did not receive initial active empiric treatment: results from the prospective, multicentre cohort PROBAC. Int J Infect Dis. 2024;145. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2024.107072

Curran

Leung

, et al. Estimating daily antibiotic harms: an umbrella review with individual study meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(4):479-490. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.10.022

XERAVA [package insert].Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2018.

Solomkin

Evans

Slepavicius

, et al. Assessing the efficacy and safety of eravacycline vs ertapenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections in the investigating gram-negative infections treated with eravacycline (IGNITE 1) trial: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(3):224-232. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4237

Solomkin

Gardovskis

Lawrence

, et al. IGNITE4: results of a phase 3, randomized, multicenter, prospective trial of eravacycline vs meropenem in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(6):921-929. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1029

Scott

LJ.

Eravacycline: a review in complicated intra-abdominal infections. Drugs. 2019;79(3):315-324. doi:10.1007/s40265-019-01067-3

Van Hise

Petrak

Skorodin

, et al. A real-world assessment of clinical outcomes and safety of eravacycline: a novel fluorocycline. Infect Dis Ther. 2020;9(4):1017-1028. doi:10.1007/s40121-020-00351-0

10.

Kunz Coyne

Alosaimy

Lucas

, et al. Eravacycline, the first four years: health outcomes and tolerability data for 19 hospitals in 5 U.S. Regions from 2018 to 2022. Microbiol Spectr. 2023;12(1). doi:10.1128/spectrum.02351-23

11.

Hobbs

ALV

Gelfand

Cleveland

Saddler

Sierra-Hoffman

. A retrospective, multicentre evaluation of eravacycline utilisation in community and academic hospitals. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2022;29:430-433. doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2021.10.020

12.

Thabit

Monogue

Newman

Nicolau

DP.

Assessment of in vivo efficacy of eravacycline against Enterobacteriaceae exhibiting various resistance mechanisms: a dose-ranging study and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51(5):727-732. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.01.001

13.

McCarthy

MW.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of eravacycline. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58(9):1149-1153. doi:10.1007/x40262-019-00767-z

14.

Eravacycline–Injection products. FDA-identified interpretive criteria. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2022. Accessed April 30, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/eravacycline-injection-products.

15.

Alosaimy

Abdul-Mutakabbir

Kebriaei

Jorgensen

SCJ

Rybak

MJ.

Evaluation of eravacycline: a novel fluorocycline. Pharmacotherapy. 2020;40(3):221-238. doi:10.1002/phar.2366

16.

Abdallah

Olafisoye

Cortes

Urban

Landman

Quale

Activity of eravacycline against enterobacteriaceae and acinetobacter baumannii, including multidrug-resistant isolates, from New York City. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(3):1802-1805. doi:10.1128/AAC.04809-14

17.

Felice

Efimova

Izmailyan

Napolitano

Chopra

Efficacy and tolerability of eravacycline in bacteremic patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection: a pooled analysis from the IGNITE1 and IGNITE4 studies. Surg Infect. 2021;22(5):556-561. doi:10.1089/sur.2020.241

18.

Tamma

Aitken

Bonomo

, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidance on the treatment of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales (CRE), and pseudomonas aeruginosa with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa). Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(7):1109-1116. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab295

19.

Scott

Zhu

Jayakumar

Shan

Viswesh

Efficacy of Eravacycline Versus Best Previously Available Therapy for Adults With Pneumonia Due to Difficult-to-Treat Resistant (DTR) Acinetobacter baumannii. Ann Pharmacother. 2022;56(12):1299-1307. doi:10.1177/10600280221085551

20.

Alosaimy

Morrisette

Lagnf

, et al. Clinical outcomes of eravacycline in patients treated predominately for carbapenem-resistant acinetobacter baumannii. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(5):e0047922. doi:10.1128/spectrum.00479-22

21.

Jackson

MNW

Wei

Mang

Prokesch

Ortwine

. Combination eravacycline therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia due to carbapenem-resistant acinetobacter baumannii in patients with COVID-19: a case series. Pharmacotherapy. 2024;44(4):301-307. doi:10.1002/phar.2908

22.

Luo

Zhang

Liu

Zhou

The efficacy and safety of eravacycline in the treatment of patients with pneumonia in respiratory departments: a real-world multicenter retrospective study. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2025;45:196-201. doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2025.09.011

23.

Paul

Carrara

Retamar

, et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(4):521-547. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.11.025

24.

Clark

Kulengowski

Burgess

DS.

In vitro activity of eravacycline compared with tigecycline against carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56(6):106178. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106178

25.

Seifert

Stefanik

Sutcliffe

Higgins

PG.

In-vitro activity of the novel fluorocycline eravacycline against carbapenem non-susceptible acinetobacter baumannii. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51(1):62-64. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.06.022

26.

Schuttevaer

Boogers

Brink

, et al. Predictive performance of comorbidity for 30-day and 1-year mortality in patients with bloodstream infection visiting the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(4):e057196. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057196

27.

Patino

Vathy

Albrecht

, et al. Combating resistant pathogens: exploring the efficacy of eravacycline utilization in multidrug-resistant infections. Microbiol Spectr. 2025;13(12):e0131425. doi:10.1128/spectrum.01314-25

28.

Cartau

Michon

Verdon

Baldolli

Oral tetracyclines for bone and joint infections: what do we know?

J Bone Jt Infect. 2025;10(2):143-154. doi:10.5194/jbji-10-143-2025

29.

Kunz Coyne

Alosaimy

Lucas

, et al. Eravacycline use in immunocompromised patients: multicenter evaluation of timely versus late initiation on clinical outcomes. Microbiol Spectr. 2025;13(10):e00565-25. doi:10.1128/spectrum.00565-25