ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Efficacy and safety of Omadacycline in community-acquired pneumonia among elderly patients: a real-world evidence 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: This study aimed to evaluate real-world effectiveness and safety of omadacycline for elderly community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) versus tigecycline, moxifloxacin, and cefoperazone-sulbactam after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled non-ICU hospitalized elderly CAP patients. Missing covariates were handled by multiple imputation, and IPTW balanced groups. Primary outcome was pragmatic clinical response (improvement in at least one of laboratory markers, chest imaging, or clinical symptoms), with a sensitivity analysis requiring all three. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, antibiotic duration, microbiological clearance, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses used age < 75 vs ≥ 75 years and CURB-65 < 2 vs ≥ 2. Results: A total of 1,208 patients were included: 177 in the omadacycline group, 124 in the tigecycline group, 666 in the moxifloxacin group, and 241 in the cefoperazone-sulbactam group. After IPTW adjustment, omadacycline showed a pragmatic clinical response comparable to tigecycline, higher than moxifloxacin, but lower than cefoperazone-sulbactam. Omadacycline was associated with shorter hospital stay than tigecycline and cefoperazone-sulbactam, but longer than moxifloxacin; antibiotic duration was comparable to tigecycline, shorter than cefoperazone-sulbactam, but longer than moxifloxacin. Microbiological clearance was lower with omadacycline in the evaluable subset, whereas recorded adverse events were fewer but limited by rare-event sparsity. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that cefoperazone-sulbactam had a higher response than omadacycline in patients aged <75 years or with CURB-65 <2. Subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneous associations by age and disease severity and should be interpreted as exploratory. Conclusion: In this real-world analysis of elderly patients with CAP after IPTW adjustment, omadacycline showed a pragmatic clinical response comparable to tigecycline, higher than moxifloxacin, but lower than cefoperazone-sulbactam. Omadacycline was associated with shorter hospital stay than tigecycline and cefoperazone-sulbactam, but longer hospital stay than moxifloxacin. Antibiotic duration was comparable to tigecycline, shorter than cefoperazone-sulbactam, but longer than moxifloxacin. Given the broad pragmatic endpoint, high baseline response rate, sensitivity to endpoint definition and missing-data handling, incomplete microbiological follow-up, and residual confounding inherent to retrospective data, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and require prospective validation.
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.