Acinetobacter baumannii has emerged as a major cause of healthcare-associated infections. Controversy exists as to whether antimicrobial resistance increases the risk of mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this association. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to May 2013 to identify studies comparing mortality in patients with carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) vs. carbapenem-susceptible A. baumannii (CSAB). A random-effects model was used to pool Odds Ratios (OR). Heterogeneity was examined using I(2). We included 16 observational studies. There were 850 reported deaths (33%) among the 2546 patients. Patients with CRAB had a significantly higher risk of mortality than patients with CSAB in the pooled analysis of crude effect estimates (crude OR = 2.22; 95% CI = 1.66, 2.98), although substantial heterogeneity was evident (heterogeneity I(2) = 55%). The association remained significant in the pooled adjusted OR of 10 studies. Studies reported that patients with CRAB compared to patients with CSAB were more likely to have severe underlying illness and also to receive inappropriate empirical antimicrobial treatment, which increases the risk of mortality. Our study suggests that carbapenem resistance may increase the risk of mortality in patients with A. baumannii infection. However, cautious interpretation is required because of the residual confounding factors and inadequate sample size in most studies.

No abstract

The QICER Task Force recommends that ISPOR implement the following: * With respect to CER guidelines, that ISPOR promote harmonization of guidelines, allowing for differences in application, regional needs and politics; evaluate available instruments or promote development of a new one that will allow standardized quantification of the impact of CER guidelines on the quality of CER studies; report periodically on those countries or regions that have developed guidelines; periodically evaluate the quality of published studies (those journals with CER guidances) or those submitted to decision-making bodies (as public transparency increases). * With respect to methodologies, that ISPOR promote publication of methodological guidelines in more applied journals in more easily understandable format to transfer knowledge to researchers who need to apply more rigorous methods; promote full availability of models in electronic format to combat space restrictions in hardcopy publications; promote consistency of methodological review for all CER studies; promote adoption of explicit best practices guidelines among regulatory and reimbursement authorities; periodically update all ISPOR Task Force reports; periodically review use of ISPOR Task Force guidelines; periodically report on statistical and methodological challenges in HE; evaluate periodically whether ISPOR's methodological guidelines lead to improved quality; and support training and knowledge transfer of rigorous CER methodologies to researchers and health care decision-makers. * With respect to publications, that ISPOR develop standard CER guidances to which journals will be able to refer their authors and their reviewers; lobby to establish these guidances within the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Requirements to which most journals refer in their Author Instructions; provide support in terms of additional reviewer expertise to those journals lacking appropriate reviewers; periodically report on journals publishing CER research; periodically report on the quality of CER publications; and support training and knowledge transfer of the use of these guidelines to researchers and reviewers. * With respect to evidence-based health-care decision-making, that ISPOR recognize at its annual meetings those countries/agencies/private companies/researchers using CER well, and those practitioners and researchers supporting good patient use of CER in decision-making; and promote public presentation of case studies of applied use of CER concepts or guidelines.

No abstract