Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27851857›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2017

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.

Joseph Solomkin, David Evans, Algirdas Slepavicius, Patrick Lee, Andrew Marsh, Larry Tsai, Joyce A Sutcliffe, Patrick Horn

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01844856 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Prospective Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Eravacycline Compared With Ertapenem in Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections), which is not on this map. Cited by 131 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT01844856 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter, Prospective Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Eravacycline Compared With Ertapenem in Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections

TypeinterventionalSponsorTetraphase Pharmaceuticals, IncRan2013 to 2014Enrolled541ConditionsComplicated Intra-abdominal InfectionsArmsEravacycline, Ertapenem, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

131 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 254 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis byPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. IGNITE4: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Multicenter, Prospective Trial of Eravacycline vs Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intraabdominal Infections.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The Rise in Carbapenem-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph SolomkinUniversity of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
David EvansOhio State University School of Medicine, Columbus.
Algirdas SlepaviciusKlaipeda University Hospital, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
Patrick LeeBaystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts.
Andrew MarshTetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc, Watertown, Massachusetts.
Larry TsaiTetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc, Watertown, Massachusetts.
Joyce A SutcliffeTetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc, Watertown, Massachusetts.
Patrick HornTetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc, Watertown, Massachusetts.
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals (United States) · USBaystate Medical Center · USKlaipėda University · LTThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic of the tetracycline class with in vitro activity against clinically important gram-negative, gram-positive aerobic, and facultative bacteria including most of those resistant to cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, multidrug resistant strains and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and most anaerobic pathogens. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with ertapenem in adult hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of eravacycline in comparison with ertapenem in patients with cIAI requiring surgical or percutaneous intervention. The test-of-cure evaluation was conducted 25 to 31 days after the first dose of the study drug and the follow-up visit was conducted 38 to 50 days after the first dose of the study drug. All patients recruited into this study were hospitalized. Five hundred forty-one patients were recruited for this study; 270 patients were randomized to receive eravacycline, and 271 patients were randomized to receive ertapenem. Patients had to meet all of the following criteria: hospitalized for cIAI requiring intervention; 18 years or older; evidence of systemic inflammatory response; pain caused by cIAI; able to provide informed consent; and diagnosis of cIAI with sonogram or radiographic imaging or visual confirmation. Analyses were done in intent-to-treat and evaluable populations. Interventions: Patients received eravacycline, 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours, or ertapenem, 1.0 g every 24 hours, for a minimum of four 24-hour dosing cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcome assessments were made at the end of treatment, test of cure, and follow-up visits and were classified as clinical cure, clinical failure, or indeterminate/missing. Results: In total, 541 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 270 in the eravacycline group and 271 in the ertapenem group. The mean ages were 54.9 years and 55.4 years for the eravacycline and ertapenem groups, respectively. Most patients were white (263 of 270 patients [97.4%] in the eravacycline group and 260 of 271 patients [95.9%] in the ertapenem group). For the microbiological intent-to-treat population, the rates of clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit were 86.8% in the eravacycline group and 87.6% in the ertapenem group. The difference in clinical cure rates between the groups was -0.80% (95% CI, -7.1% to 5.5%), meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin and allowing for statistical noninferiority of eravacycline to ertapenem to be declared for this study. Both study drugs were well tolerated. Conclusions and Relevance: Overall, eravacycline demonstrated noninferiority to ertapenem for the treatment of patients with cIAI. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01844856.

Indexed as

Gram-Negative BacteriaAbdominal AbscessAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsAppendicitisBacterial Infectionsbeta-LactamsDouble-Blind MethodErtapenemFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamseravacyclineErtapenemTetracyclines

Identifiers

PMID27851857
OpenAlexW2550643720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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 OpenQuestion graph.