ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
A matched pilot cohort study of intravenous omadacycline in the treatment of severe pneumonia associated with carbapenem-resistant
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carbapenem-resistant Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed by collecting data on severe CRAB-caused pneumonia cases treated with omadacycline or tigecycline at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from January 2022 to June 2024. A 1:1 propensity score-based matching design based on baseline characteristics was utilized. We compared the incidence of clinical response at day 14 or at the end of treatment (EOT) and other clinical outcomes between the two cohorts. Results: A total of 40 patients were analyzed, with 20 patients in each cohort. The clinical success rate at day 14 or at the EOT was 65% (13/20) in the omadacycline group compared to 55% (11/20) in the tigecycline group. Both groups had an equal mortality rate, with 8 patients dying within 28 days. Development of tigecycline resistance was observed in one patient. The average duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressor, renal replacement therapy was also comparable in both groups. Adverse events occurred in 50% (10/20) of patients in the omadacycline group and 75% (15/20) in the tigecycline group, with coagulopathy being significantly lower in the omadacycline group (1/20, 5% vs. 7/20, 35%). Gastrointestinal events were reported in 10% (2/20) of the omadacycline group compared to 30% (6/20) in the tigecycline group. Abnormal liver function was observed in 9/20 patients (45%) in the omadacycline group and 6/20 patients (30%) in the tigecycline group. Conclusion: This pilot study was the first to explore the efficacy and safety of omadacycline in CRAB-caused pneumonia. Omadacycline demonstrated comparable efficacy to tigecycline in this small pilot study in the treatment of CRAB-caused pneumonia and has a lower incidence of coagulopathy compared to tigecycline, suggesting it may be a viable option, for treating CRAB-caused severe pneumonia, but further prospective research with larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.
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.