OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
BMC infectious diseases
Apr 14, 2023;23 (1): 232.

Omadacycline for treatment of acute bacterial infections: a meta-analysis of phase II/III trials.

Fei Lin, Rong He, Bin Yu, Bowen Deng, Baodong Ling, Mingyong Yuan
Author Information
  1. Fei Lin: Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China.
  2. Rong He: Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China.
  3. Bin Yu: Department of Pharmacy, Mianyang Central Hospital, Mianyang, China.
  4. Bowen Deng: Department of Pharmacy, The Sixth People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
  5. Baodong Ling: School of Pharmacy, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China. lingbaodong@cmc.edu.cn.
  6. Mingyong Yuan: Clinical Medical College, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China. yuanmingyong@cmc.edu.cn.
PMID: 37059988 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08212-0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline for the treatment of acute bacterial infections.
METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials was conducted up to July 1, 2022. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which omadacycline and other antibiotics were evaluated for treating acute bacterial infections in adults. The primary outcomes were clinical response and microbiological response, whereas the secondary outcome was the risk of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs involving 2841 patients with acute bacterial infection were included. Overall, our study illustrated that the clinical cure ratio of omadacycline was similar to the comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infections (OR = 1.18, 95%CI = 0.96, 1.46, I = 29%). Omadacycline had a microbiological eradication rate similar to comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infections (OR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.81, 1.29, I = 42%). No statistical differences were observed between omadacycline and the comparators in terms of infection caused by Staphylococcus aureus (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.80, 1.63, I = 0%), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA, OR = 1.28, 95%CI = 0.73, 2.24, I = 0%), methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA, OR = 1.12, 95%CI = 0.69, 1.81, I = 0%), and Enterococcus faecalis (OR = 2.47, 95%CI = 0.36, 16.97, I = 7%). A significant difference was found between omadacycline and the comparators for the risk of any AEs and treatment related AEs. The risk of discontinuation of the study drug due to an AEs was lower for omadacycline than for the comparators.
CONCLUSION: Omadacycline is as good as comparators in terms of efficacy and tolerance in the treatment of acute bacterial infections in adult patients. Thus, omadacycline is an appropriate option for antibiotic therapy in adult patients with acute bacterial infections.

Keywords

Acute bacterial infections Meta-analysis, Efficacy, Safety Omadacycline

References

  1. Discoveries (Craiova). 2019 Dec 31;7(4):e102 [PMID: 32309620]
  2. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Aug 26;101(34):e30120 [PMID: 36042624]
  3. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Apr 24;61(5): [PMID: 28223386]
  4. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021 Dec;27:337-351 [PMID: 34775129]
  5. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019 Dec;19:56-63 [PMID: 30825698]
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jul;123:114-119 [PMID: 32247026]
  7. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 Apr;28(4):521-547 [PMID: 34923128]
  8. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Nov;56(11):5650-4 [PMID: 22908151]
  9. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018 Mar 27;62(4): [PMID: 29378719]
  10. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1 [PMID: 25554246]
  11. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;39(8):1559-1572 [PMID: 32356026]
  12. J Clin Med. 2019 Jun 17;8(6): [PMID: 31212991]
  13. Pharmaceutics. 2021 Dec 05;13(12): [PMID: 34959366]
  14. Ann Pharmacother. 2019 May;53(5):486-500 [PMID: 30917674]
  15. Infect Dis Ther. 2022 Feb;11(1):517-531 [PMID: 35015255]
  16. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021 Dec 30;11(1): [PMID: 35052917]
  17. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Oct;19(10):1080-1090 [PMID: 31474458]
  18. Drugs. 2019 May;79(7):705-714 [PMID: 30972660]
  19. N Engl J Med. 2019 May 23;380(21):2072-2073 [PMID: 31116926]
  20. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 1;69(Suppl 1):S1-S5 [PMID: 31367739]
  21. EMBO Rep. 2020 Dec 3;21(12):e51034 [PMID: 33400359]
  22. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380(6):528-538 [PMID: 30726689]
  23. Microorganisms. 2019 Aug 18;7(8): [PMID: 31426596]
  24. Drugs. 2018 Dec;78(18):1931-1937 [PMID: 30471003]
  25. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380(6):517-527 [PMID: 30726692]
  26. BMC Microbiol. 2020 Nov 16;20(1):350 [PMID: 33198626]
  27. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Dec;98(51):e18426 [PMID: 31861009]
  28. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Apr 21;64(5): [PMID: 32071045]
  29. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2019 Apr 21;12(2): [PMID: 31010063]

MeSH Term

Adult
Humans
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Bacterial Infections
Staphylococcal Infections
Tetracyclines
Treatment Outcome
Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic
Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic

Chemicals

Anti-Bacterial Agents
omadacycline
Tetracyclines
Journal Article Meta-Analysis

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0bacterialacuteomadacyclineinfectionstreatmentcomparators95%CI = 01OR = 1AEsOmadacyclinestudyclinicalriskpatientsaureusI = 0%efficacyincludedtrialsRCTsresponsemicrobiologicalinfectionsimilar81termsSadultOBJECTIVE:aimsassesssafetyMETHODS:searchPubMedEmbaseCochraneLibraryClinicalTrialsconductedJuly2022randomizedcontrolledantibioticsevaluatedtreatingadultsprimaryoutcomeswhereassecondaryoutcomeadverseeventsRESULTS:totalseveninvolving2841Overallillustratedcureratio189646I = 29%eradicationrate0229I = 42%statisticaldifferencesobservedcausedStaphylococcus148063methicillin-resistantMRSA2873224methicillin-susceptibleMSSA1269EnterococcusfaecalisOR = 247361697I = 7%significantdifferencefoundrelateddiscontinuationdrugduelowerCONCLUSION:goodtoleranceThusappropriateoptionantibiotictherapyinfections:meta-analysisphaseII/IIIAcuteMeta-analysisEfficacySafety

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)