ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Omadacycline in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in patients with comorbidities: a
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02531438 (A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Omadacycline Intravenous), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Omadacycline Intravenous (IV)/Oral (PO) to Moxifloxacin IV/PO for Treating Adults Subjects With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Omadacycline versus moxifloxacin for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (OPTIC-2): a phase 3b, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, controlled, noninferiority trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Omadacycline exhibits anti-inflammatory properties and improves survival in a murine model of post-influenza MRSA pneumonia.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Article
- New Perspectives on Antimicrobial Agents: Omadacycline for community-acquired pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, and nontuberculous mycobacteria (focus onAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Review
- Bactericidal versus bacteriostatic antibacterials: clinical significance, differences and synergistic potential in clinical practice.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Review
- Third-Generation Tetracyclines: Current Knowledge and Therapeutic Potential.Biomolecules · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolones to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) in adults with comorbidities. Fluoroquinolones are effective against both typical and atypical pathogens. However, fluoroquinolone treatment has a risk of adverse effects, and the Food and Drug Administration has issued black box safety warnings for their use. Inpatient use of fluoroquinolones has reduced as a result; however, most antibiotic courses are completed as outpatients and discharge prescriptions account for the majority of fluoroquinolone use. As such, a new treatment option is needed to replace fluoroquinolones. Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic with a broad spectrum of activity and is available as a once-daily intravenous or bioequivalent oral formulation. Methods: This study assessed the safety and clinical efficacy of omadacycline compared with moxifloxacin for the treatment of adult CABP patients with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) risk class II/III and ≥1 comorbidity through a Results: In total, 239 omadacycline- and 222 moxifloxacin-treated patients were assessed. The median age was similar between groups (omadacycline: 57 years; moxifloxacin: 58 years), with 26.0% and 26.6%, respectively, ≥65 years of age. Early clinical response was 91.6% for patients with ≥1 comorbidity treated with omadacycline and 91.4% for those treated with moxifloxacin. Post-treatment evaluation results for overall response were 89.1% in the omadacycline group and 87.4% in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusion: Safety warnings have reduced inpatient use of fluoroquinolones; however, outpatient and discharge prescriptions account for the majority of fluoroquinolone use. Outpatients with comorbidities need an efficacious alternative to fluoroquinolones. Omadacycline maintains the similar efficacy and benefits of fluoroquinolones as a once-daily, monotherapy, bioequivalent oral option with potent Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02531438, identifer: NCT02531438; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2013-004071-13, identifier: EudraCT #2013-004071-13.
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.