The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treating acute bacterial infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Pub Date : 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1080/14740338.2025.2467815
Yao-Jie Chen, Si-Yuan Gao, Jing Fu, Sun-Ting Qin, Meng-Yu Kong, Xiu-Hua Zhang, Guan-Yang Lin, Xu-Ben Yu
{"title":"The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treating acute bacterial infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Yao-Jie Chen, Si-Yuan Gao, Jing Fu, Sun-Ting Qin, Meng-Yu Kong, Xiu-Hua Zhang, Guan-Yang Lin, Xu-Ben Yu","doi":"10.1080/14740338.2025.2467815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to reevaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treating acute bacterial infections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials up to 1 January 2024, including only randomized controlled trials comparing OMC with other antibiotics in adults. Primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological responses; secondary outcomes included adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs with 2957 patients met the inclusion criteria. OMC showed a slightly better clinical response at the post-therapy evaluation phase in the clinically evaluable population (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01-1.05, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Microbial eradication rates for Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections showed no significant differences between OMC and comparators. Safety analysis revealed no significant differences in overall AEs, treatment-related AEs, serious AEs, or drug discontinuation due to AEs. However, OMC had a lower risk of diarrhea (RR: 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23-1.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 65%). All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between OMC and comparators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OMC is a safe and effective treatment for acute bacterial infections, comparable to other antibiotics.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This study has been registered in the online systematic review database (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]), and the registration number is CRD42024575416.</p>","PeriodicalId":12232,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2025.2467815","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to reevaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treating acute bacterial infections.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials up to 1 January 2024, including only randomized controlled trials comparing OMC with other antibiotics in adults. Primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological responses; secondary outcomes included adverse events.

Results: Seven RCTs with 2957 patients met the inclusion criteria. OMC showed a slightly better clinical response at the post-therapy evaluation phase in the clinically evaluable population (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01-1.05, I2 = 0%). Microbial eradication rates for Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections showed no significant differences between OMC and comparators. Safety analysis revealed no significant differences in overall AEs, treatment-related AEs, serious AEs, or drug discontinuation due to AEs. However, OMC had a lower risk of diarrhea (RR: 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23-1.00, I2 = 65%). All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between OMC and comparators.

Conclusions: OMC is a safe and effective treatment for acute bacterial infections, comparable to other antibiotics.

Registration: This study has been registered in the online systematic review database (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]), and the registration number is CRD42024575416.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Drug Safety ranks #62 of 216 in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy category in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (ISSN 1474-0338 [print], 1744-764X [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on all aspects of drug safety and original papers on the clinical implications of drug treatment safety issues, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.
期刊最新文献
Comparative safety analysis of Hedgehog inhibitor preparations: insights from the FAERS database. Hepatic adverse events associated with anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a disproportionality analysis based on FAERS database and analysis of drug-gene interaction network. Post-marketing safety assessment of constipation drugs: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on FAERS database. Assessment of adverse events of the novel antiepileptic drug lamotrigine: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on FAERS. Drug-induced skin ulcer: real-world pharmacovigilance analysis based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1