{"title":"奥马达环素治疗急性细菌感染的有效性和安全性:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。","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":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":3.1000,\"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}","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
摘要
前言:本研究旨在重新评价奥马达环素治疗急性细菌感染的临床疗效和安全性。方法:我们检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science和截至2024年1月1日的临床试验,仅包括比较OMC与其他成人抗生素的随机对照试验。主要结局是临床和微生物反应;次要结局包括不良事件。结果:7项rct共2957例患者符合纳入标准。在临床可评估人群中,OMC在治疗后评估阶段表现出稍好的临床反应(RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01-1.05, I2 = 0%)。革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性感染的微生物根除率在OMC和比较国之间没有显着差异。安全性分析显示,在总体不良事件、治疗相关不良事件、严重不良事件或因不良事件而停药方面没有显著差异。然而,OMC有较低的腹泻风险(RR: 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23-1.00, I2 = 65%)。全因死亡率在OMC和比较组之间没有显著差异。结论:OMC是一种安全有效的治疗急性细菌感染的药物,与其他抗生素相当。注册:本研究已在在线系统评价数据库(Prospective Register of systematic Reviews [PROSPERO])中注册,注册号为CRD42024575416。
The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treating acute bacterial infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
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.