ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2026
Multicenter Real-World Outpatient Use of Intravenous Omadacycline.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOmadacycline is indicated for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. With limited real-world data, we report the clinical experience and outcomes of intravenous (IV) omadacycline in outpatient settings for treatment of any infection.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective review of adults who received IV omadacycline for any infection between April 2019 and November 2022. Clinical data included infection type, microbiology, therapy characteristics, and adverse events. Clinical success was defined as complete or partial symptom resolution at the completion of IV omadacycline. Recurrence data at 12 months were assessed for patients with bone and joint infections (BJI).
resultsThe study included 67 patients (median age, 59 years; 56.7% male; median Charlson index, 4) from 17 infectious disease office infusion centers. Most had BJI (53.7%), followed by complicated skin and skin structure infections (29.8%), complicated intra-abdominal infections (7.5%), respiratory tract infections (7.5%), and urinary tract infections (1.5%). The most common Gram-positive pathogen was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (14.2%), and the most common Gram-negative pathogen was Enterobacter spp. (7.5%). Nontuberculous mycobacteria were identified in nine patients. Clinical success occurred in 86.9% of evaluable patients. Non-success was due to persistent infection (6.7%), adverse events (3.3%), and resistant pathogens (1.7%). Patients with BJI had sustained clinical success at 12 months in 72.4%.
conclusionsOmadacycline was shown to be safe and effective when used as IV therapy in the outpatient setting to treat a variety of serious infections, including bone and joint infections, and mycobacterial infections.
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.