Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

Abstract The rise in antibiotic resistance among Gram-negative bacteria poses significant challenges to global health. This study evaluates the in vitro efficacy of tigecycline, omadacycline, and eravacycline against clinical isolates harboring the mobile tigecycline resistance genes tet(X4) and tet...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jing Zhang, Hanyu Wang, Aoxiao Chen, Ning Dong, Hongwei Zhou, Kewei Li
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BioMed Central 2025-03-01
Series:One Health Advances
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s44280-025-00072-4
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850098456840896512
author Jing Zhang
Hanyu Wang
Aoxiao Chen
Ning Dong
Hongwei Zhou
Kewei Li
author_facet Jing Zhang
Hanyu Wang
Aoxiao Chen
Ning Dong
Hongwei Zhou
Kewei Li
author_sort Jing Zhang
collection DOAJ
description Abstract The rise in antibiotic resistance among Gram-negative bacteria poses significant challenges to global health. This study evaluates the in vitro efficacy of tigecycline, omadacycline, and eravacycline against clinical isolates harboring the mobile tigecycline resistance genes tet(X4) and tet(A). A total of 175 clinical strains collected between 1999 and 2023 were analyzed. Resistance genes, including tet(X4) and tet(A), were determined using Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using the broth microdilution method. Eravacycline exhibited significantly lower MIC values than those of tigecycline for Escherichia coli carrying tet(X4) (P < 0.0001), despite similar resistance rates. Omadacycline consistently displayed the highest MIC values, indicating reduced potency. In contrast, Klebsiella pneumoniae carrying tet(A) showed higher MIC values for eravacycline than tigecycline. Universal resistance was observed in Enterobacter cloacae carrying tet(A). Eravacycline demonstrated superior in vitro efficacy, particularly against E. coli carrying tet(X4), underscoring its potential as a therapeutic option for multidrug-resistant infections. MIC values should complement resistance rates in clinical decision-making, and further studies are warranted to validate eravacycline’s clinical utility.
format Article
id doaj-art-1b57f5d5c2d9423baa1259abbdf43721
institution DOAJ
issn 2731-9970
language English
publishDate 2025-03-01
publisher BioMed Central
record_format Article
series One Health Advances
spelling doaj-art-1b57f5d5c2d9423baa1259abbdf437212025-08-20T02:40:43ZengBioMed CentralOne Health Advances2731-99702025-03-01311910.1186/s44280-025-00072-4Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteriaJing Zhang0Hanyu Wang1Aoxiao Chen2Ning Dong3Hongwei Zhou4Kewei Li5Department of Clinical Laboratory, School of Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang UniversityBeijing Key Laboratory of Detection Technology for Animal Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural UniversityDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, School of Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang UniversitySchool of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of MedicineDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, School of Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang UniversitySchool of Laboratory Medicine and Life Sciences, Wenzhou Medical UniversityAbstract The rise in antibiotic resistance among Gram-negative bacteria poses significant challenges to global health. This study evaluates the in vitro efficacy of tigecycline, omadacycline, and eravacycline against clinical isolates harboring the mobile tigecycline resistance genes tet(X4) and tet(A). A total of 175 clinical strains collected between 1999 and 2023 were analyzed. Resistance genes, including tet(X4) and tet(A), were determined using Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using the broth microdilution method. Eravacycline exhibited significantly lower MIC values than those of tigecycline for Escherichia coli carrying tet(X4) (P < 0.0001), despite similar resistance rates. Omadacycline consistently displayed the highest MIC values, indicating reduced potency. In contrast, Klebsiella pneumoniae carrying tet(A) showed higher MIC values for eravacycline than tigecycline. Universal resistance was observed in Enterobacter cloacae carrying tet(A). Eravacycline demonstrated superior in vitro efficacy, particularly against E. coli carrying tet(X4), underscoring its potential as a therapeutic option for multidrug-resistant infections. MIC values should complement resistance rates in clinical decision-making, and further studies are warranted to validate eravacycline’s clinical utility.https://doi.org/10.1186/s44280-025-00072-4EravacyclineTigecyclineAntibiotic resistanceTet(X4)Escherichia coliKlebsiella pneumoniae
spellingShingle Jing Zhang
Hanyu Wang
Aoxiao Chen
Ning Dong
Hongwei Zhou
Kewei Li
Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria
One Health Advances
Eravacycline
Tigecycline
Antibiotic resistance
Tet(X4)
Escherichia coli
Klebsiella pneumoniae
title Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria
title_full Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria
title_short Comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria
title_sort comparative efficacy of eravacycline and tigecycline in addressing multidrug resistant gram negative bacteria
topic Eravacycline
Tigecycline
Antibiotic resistance
Tet(X4)
Escherichia coli
Klebsiella pneumoniae
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s44280-025-00072-4
work_keys_str_mv AT jingzhang comparativeefficacyoferavacyclineandtigecyclineinaddressingmultidrugresistantgramnegativebacteria
AT hanyuwang comparativeefficacyoferavacyclineandtigecyclineinaddressingmultidrugresistantgramnegativebacteria
AT aoxiaochen comparativeefficacyoferavacyclineandtigecyclineinaddressingmultidrugresistantgramnegativebacteria
AT ningdong comparativeefficacyoferavacyclineandtigecyclineinaddressingmultidrugresistantgramnegativebacteria
AT hongweizhou comparativeefficacyoferavacyclineandtigecyclineinaddressingmultidrugresistantgramnegativebacteria
AT keweili comparativeefficacyoferavacyclineandtigecyclineinaddressingmultidrugresistantgramnegativebacteria