ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Efficacy and short-term safety of intravenous omadacycline as second-line therapy for macrolide- unresponsive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and short-term safety of omadacycline as second-line therapy for macrolide-unresponsive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MUMPP) in children aged 8-16 years. Methods: A total of 64 hospitalized children with MUMPP admitted between September 2023 and December 2024 were enrolled. Children with persistent fever (>38.0 °C) after 72 hours of azithromycin monotherapy were assigned to receive intravenous omadacycline (n=18) or continued azithromycin (n=46). Omadacycline was dosed according to body surface area (BSA)-based scaling from the approved adult regimen (loading dose on day 1; maintenance dose once daily for 7 days). Primary outcome: time to defervescence (TTD). Secondary outcomes: 72-hour defervescence rate, radiological improvement, corticosteroid use, and adverse events. Three-month follow-up included dental examinations. Results: Omadacycline achieved shorter TTD than continued macrolides (50.78 ± 20.71 vs. 72.46 ± 25.61 hours; P = 0.002) and higher 72-hour defervescence rate (55.6% vs. 26.1%; P = 0.026). On multivariate linear regression, continued macrolide therapy (B = 13.43 h, 95% CI: 2.02-24.84, P = 0.022), positive 23S rRNA mutation status (B = 20.85 h, 95% CI: 10.94-30.77, P<0.001), and systemic corticosteroid use (B = 21.21 h, 95% CI: 10.79-31.62, P<0.001) were independently associated with prolonged TTD. No significant difference was observed in radiological improvement (P = 0.668). Corticosteroid requirement was significantly lower in the omadacycline group than in the macrolide group (27.8% vs. 67.4%; P = 0.004). Adverse events were comparable (5.6% vs. 8.7%; P = 0.645). At 3-month follow-up, no clinically significant changes were observed in hematological indices, hepatic or renal function, or cardiac enzyme profiles, and dental examination revealed no discoloration or enamel hypoplasia in any patient. Conclusion: In this retrospective cohort, omadacycline as second-line therapy was associated with significantly faster fever resolution than continued macrolide treatment, with acceptable short-term safety profiles over a 3-month follow-up. Prospective randomized trials are 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.