Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38051631›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of infectious diseases2024

Fecal Pharmacokinetics and Gut Microbiome Effects of Oral Omadacycline Versus Vancomycin in Healthy Volunteers.

Jinhee Jo, Chenlin Hu, Khurshida Begum, Weiqun Wang, Thanh M Le, Samantha Agyapong, Blake M Hanson, Hossaena Ayele, Chris Lancaster, M Jahangir Alam and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06030219 (Microbiome Effect of Omadacycline on Healthy Volunteers), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT06030219 phase1completednot on this map

Microbiome Effect of Omadacycline on Healthy Volunteers

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of HoustonRan2020 to 2023Enrolled32ConditionsHealthy VolunteersArmsOmadacycline, Vancomycin Pill, Moxifloxacin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jinhee JoDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Chenlin HuDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Khurshida BegumDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Weiqun WangDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Thanh M LeDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Samantha AgyapongDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Blake M HansonUTHealth Houston School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Hossaena AyeleUTHealth Houston School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Chris LancasterDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
M Jahangir AlamDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Anne J Gonzales-LunaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.
Kevin W GareyDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research College of Pharmacy, University of Houston.ORCID 0000-0003-2063-7503
University of Houston · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc G0505124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a common healthcare-associated infection with limited treatment options. Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline tetracycline, has potent in vitro activity against C difficile and a low propensity to cause CDI in clinical trials. We aimed to assess fecal pharmacokinetics and gut microbiome effects of oral omadacycline compared to oral vancomycin in healthy adults.

methodsThis was a phase 1, nonblinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in healthy volunteers aged 18-40 years. Subjects received a 10-day course of omadacycline or vancomycin. Stool samples were collected at baseline, daily during therapy, and at follow-up visits. Omadacycline and vancomycin stool concentrations were assessed, and microbiome changes were compared.

resultsSixteen healthy volunteers with a mean age of 26 (standard deviation [SD], 5) years were enrolled; 62.5% were male, and participants' mean body mass index was 23.5 (SD, 4.0) kg/m2. Omadacycline was well tolerated with no safety signal differences between the 2 antibiotics. A rapid initial increase in fecal concentrations of omadacycline was observed compared to vancomycin, with maximum concentrations achieved within 48 hours. A significant difference in alpha diversity was observed following therapy in both the omadacycline and vancomycin groups (P < .05). Bacterial abundance and beta diversity analysis showed differing microbiome changes in subjects who received omadacycline versus vancomycin.

conclusionsSubjects given omadacycline had high fecal concentrations with a distinct microbiome profile compared to vancomycin. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT06030219.

Indexed as

Clostridium InfectionsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleTetracyclinesVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsomadacyclineTetracyclinesVancomycinclinical trialClostridioides difficile infectionhumanmetagenomicsmicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID38051631
PMCPMC10786255
OpenAlexW4389334731

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.