ArticleCHEST pulmonary2026
Clinical Evaluation of Omadacycline for Pulmonary Mycobacterium
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary infections caused by Research Question: What are the clinical and microbiological outcomes of OMC-based therapy in patients with pulmonary MABC infections, including those with macrolide resistant isolates? Study Design and Methods: This was a retrospective subgroup analysis of a previously published multicenter cohort study conducted across 16 US academic medical centers. Adult patients with pulmonary MABC infections who received OMC for ≥ 72 hours and had ≥ 3 months of follow-up were included. The primary outcome was clinical success at 3, 6, and 12 months, defined as a composite of clinical improvement, survival, continued OMC use, and absence of microbiologic recurrence. Secondary outcomes included sputum culture improvement, outcomes by MABC subspecies and macrolide susceptibility, and adverse drug reactions. Results: Thirty-five patients were included (68.6% macrolide resistance). The median treatment duration was 8 months (interquartile range, 3.9-15.7). Clinical success was achieved in 71.4%, 89.7%, and 90.9% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Culture improvement occurred in 73.9% of evaluable patients, including 100% of those with macrolide-resistant strains. OMC was discontinued in 8 patients (22.9%) due to adverse drug reactions, most commonly gastrointestinal intolerance (26%) and transaminitis (11%). Interpretation: Our results show that OMC demonstrated high clinical success and culture improvement rates in pulmonary MABC, including macrolide-resistant cases. These findings support its potential role as a tolerable and effective oral agent within multidrug regimens. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and define optimal use strategies.
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.