Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treatment of acute bacterial infection: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline for the treatment of acute bacterial infections in adult patients through meta-analysis. METHODS:PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases were searched up to May 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated omadacycline and other comparators for treating acute bacterial infections in adult patients were included. The primary outcome was the clinical response rate at the posttreatment evaluation, whereas the secondary outcomes were risk of an adverse event (AE) and mortality. RESULTS:Four RCTs were included. Overall, omadacycline had a clinical response rate noninferior to comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infection in the modified intent-to-treat population (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.65; I?=?0%) and in the clinically evaluable population (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.11-2.11; I?=?0%). Furthermore, no significant differences were found between omadacycline and comparators for the risk of treatment-emergent AEs (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.60-2.14; I?=?93%), treatment-related AEs (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.04; I?=?56%), serious AEs (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.64-1.58; I?=?0%), and discontinuation of study drug due to an AE (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47-1.29; I?=?0%). However, in the clinical trial, NCT02877927, in which omadacycline was used in only oral form, the reported incidence of nausea and vomiting were 30.2% (111/368) and 16.9% (62/368), respectively. Finally, the mortality rate was similar between omadacycline and comparator in the treatment of acute bacterial infection (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.47-3.67; I?=?0%). CONCLUSION:The clinical efficacy of omadacycline is not inferior to that of comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infections in adult patients, and this antibiotic is also well tolerated.

SUBMITTER: Lan SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6940113 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treatment of acute bacterial infection: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lan Shao-Huan SH Chang Shen-Peng SP Lai Chih-Cheng CC Lu Li-Chin LC Chao Chien-Ming CM

Medicine 20191201 51

<h4>Background</h4>This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline for the treatment of acute bacterial infections in adult patients through meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases were searched up to May 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated omadacycline and other comparators for treating acute bacterial infections in adult patients were included. The primary outcome was the clinical response rat ...[more]

PMID: 31861009

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystemic treatments, namely, either monotherapy or combination therapy, are commonly administered to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to provide the complete efficacy and safety profiles and ranking of systemic therapies for the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic CRC.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until June 30, 2021, and also the bibliographies of relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing two or more treatments, namely, at least capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, cetuximab, oxaliplatin, or panitumumab were investigated. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated for the probability of each treatment as the most effective. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated.ResultsOne hundred two publications with 36,147 participants were assigned to 39 different treatments. Among 11 treatments with full information on six outcomes, FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly improved both the ORR and DCR, compared to FOLFIRI. Although FOLFOX and FOLFIRI/FOLFOX + cetuximab significantly prolonged both OS and PFS, treatments were comparable in terms of AEs grade ≥3 and SAEs. The top highest SUCRA values were observed in the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab group for ORR (96%) and DCR (99%), FOLFIRI + bevacizumab + panitumumab group for OS (62%) and PFS (54%), and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab group for AEs grade ≥3 (59%) and SAEs (59%) outcomes.ConclusionsThese findings suggest an available range of systemic treatment therapies with different efficacy and safety profiles with patients. Further investigations of the side effects and mutation status are required to confirm our findings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019127772.

Project description:IntroductionAcute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) represent one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits, and are frequent complications of intravenous drug use in persons who inject drugs (PWID). This study examined the efficacy and safety of omadacycline, versus linezolid, in PWID and persons who do not inject drugs, in the Phase 3 Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infection (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) studies.MethodsEligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with qualifying skin infections: wound infection, cellulitis, erysipelas, or major abscess. The primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as survival with ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at 48-72 h after the first dose of omadacycline or linezolid. Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation (PTE) in the mITT and clinical per-protocol populations, and clinical response at PTE in the micro-mITT population. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and standard clinical laboratory tests. Efficacy endpoints of clinical response at ECR and PTE were analyzed for the mITT and clinically evaluable (CE) PTE populations.ResultsIn total, 1380 patients (822 PWID, 558 non-PWID) were included in this secondary analysis. Wound infections were reported more frequently in the PWID subgroup (72.8%) at baseline; cellulitis or erysipelas (43.9%) and major abscess (37.4%) were the most frequently reported baseline infections in the non-PWID subgroup. Clinical success rates at ECR and PTE in the mITT population, and at PTE in the CE population, were high for patients receiving omadacycline or linezolid. Severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were infrequent.ConclusionThis subgroup analysis showed that omadacycline was effective and well tolerated, regardless of PWID status.

Project description:ObjectEldecalcitol (ED-71) is a vitamin D analog for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, inconsistent results have been reported in this regard. Hence, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ED-71 for osteoporosis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify potential trials from inception until April 2021. The investigated outcomes included bone mineral density and fractures at various sites, and potential adverse events. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs involving 2368 patients were selected for the final meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that ED-71 were associated with a higher level of femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) (WMD: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.24-1.60; P = 0.008), while it had no significant effect on lumbar spine BMD (WMD: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 2.30; P = 0.076) and hip BMD (WMD: 1.12; 95% CI: -0.16 to 2.40; P = 0.088). Moreover, the use of ED-71 could protect against the risk of all osteoporotic fracture (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88; P = 0.003) and vertebral fracture (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; P = 0.038), while it did not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.23-1.23; P = 0.140). The subgroup analyses found that the effects of ED-71 were superior to those of alfacalcidol on both BMD and fracture results. Moreover, the use of ED-71 plus bisphosphonate was associated with a greater improvement in BMD at various sites compared with bisphosphonate alone. Finally, ED-71 was associated with an increased risk of increased urine calcium level (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.33-2.15; P < 0.001).ConclusionThis study found that the use of ED-71 could improve BMD and fractures at various sites, especially compared with alfacalcidol or a combination with bisphosphonate for patients with osteoporosis.Systematic review registration[http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021270536].

Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treatment of acute bacterial infection: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

The efficacy and safety of omadacycline in treatment of acute bacterial infection: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets