Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37575994›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Omadacycline in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in patients with comorbidities: a

George D Rodriguez, Nathan Warren, Roman Yashayev, Surya Chitra, Maria Amodio-Groton, Kelly Wright

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT02531438 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorParatek Pharmaceuticals IncRan2015 to 2017Enrolled774ConditionsBacterial Pneumonia, Community-Acquired InfectionsArmsOmadacycline, Moxifloxacin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

George D RodriguezDivision of Antimicrobial Stewardship, New York-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing, NY, United States.
Nathan WarrenDivision of Antimicrobial Stewardship, New York-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing, NY, United States.
Roman YashayevDivision of Antimicrobial Stewardship, New York-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing, NY, United States.
Surya ChitraParatek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., King of Prussia, PA, United States.
Maria Amodio-GrotonParatek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., King of Prussia, PA, United States.
Kelly WrightParatek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., King of Prussia, PA, United States.
New York Hospital Queens · USParatek Pharmaceuticals (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

antibiotic resistancecommunity-acquired bacterial pneumoniafluoroquinolonesomadacyclineoral antibiotics

Identifiers

PMID37575994
PMCPMC10420047
OpenAlexW4385334752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.