ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2026
Clinical Experience with Omadacycline for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections and Acute Osteomyelitis.
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. It is linked to trial NCT04714411 (Real-World Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Omadacycline for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections and Acute Osteomyelitis), which is not on this 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.
Real-World Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Omadacycline for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections and Acute Osteomyelitis
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiabetic foot infections (DFIs), frequently complicated by acute osteomyelitis (AOM), are associated with substantial morbidity and are increasingly difficult to manage due to antimicrobial resistance and treatment-related toxicities. Omadacycline is a broad-spectrum aminomethylcycline with favorable safety characteristics and oral bioavailability, but real-world data in DFI and AOM are limited.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, open-label, two-center study evaluating omadacycline for hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe DFI with or without AOM who were at high risk for adverse events from standard therapy. Outcomes were compared with a 2:1 matched historical cohort treated with standard of care. The primary endpoint was clinical success at end of therapy (EOT); secondary endpoints included clinical success at test-of-cure (TOC), safety outcomes, and healthcare utilization.
resultsA TOTAL OF 14 patients received omadacycline and were matched to 28 historical controls. AOM was present in 64.3% of patients in both groups, while systemic inflammatory response syndrome was more common in the omadacycline group. Clinical success at EOT was achieved in 90% of omadacycline-treated patients versus 85.7% of controls (p = 0.999). TOC success rates were similar (60% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.999). All omadacycline patients transitioned to oral therapy and none required central venous catheter placement, compared with 71.4% of controls (p < 0.001). Serious adverse drug events occurred in no omadacycline patients versus 25% of controls.
conclusionsIn this real-world analysis, there was no observed difference in efficacy between omadacycline and standard care for DFI, including cases complicated by AOM, with few adverse events observed. These findings support continued evaluation and potential use of omadacycline in treating select patients with DFIs.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04714411.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42836951What 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.