ArticleMedicine2026
Generic versus branded tigecycline for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli and nontuberculous mycobacterial infections: A comparative safety and efficacy analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) and non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) necessitates effective salvage therapies like tigecycline. While generic formulations offer significant cost savings, clinical data comparing their real-world efficacy against original branded formulations remain limited. This study evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and safety of generic versus branded tigecycline in a resource-limited setting. We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, involving adults treated with tigecycline for MDR-GNB or NTM infections. Patients were divided into generic (Tygin®) and branded (Tygacil®) groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality, with secondary endpoints including microbiological response and safety profiles. Penalized logistic regression and sensitivity analysis were performed to adjust for baseline confounders and identify independent predictors of mortality. A total of 135 patients were analyzed (27 generic, 108 branded). Acinetobacter baumannii was the most common pathogen in this cohort. Thirty-day mortality did not differ significantly between the generic and branded groups (51.9% vs 63.9%). Among non-NTM infections, mortality rates were 59.1% and 66.3%, respectively (P = .366). The branded tigecycline group demonstrated a higher frequency of concomitant antibiotic use (P = .018). The generic tigecycline group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (48.1% vs 70.4%; P = .018). In multivariate and sensitivity analyses, tigecycline formulation was not associated with mortality. Higher APACHE II scores and Charlson Comorbidity Index were independent predictors of mortality. In this retrospective cohort, clinical and safety outcomes were exploratory and did not demonstrate significant differences between formulations. However, given the wide confidence intervals, clinically meaningful differences cannot be definitively excluded, and these findings warrant validation in adequately powered prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.