Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Objective In the present study, we aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of omadacycline (OMC) with its comparators for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) in adult patients. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating OMC for cSSTIs were searched in databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Clinical Trial, up to July 2022. The primary outcomes were clinical efficacy and microbiological response, with secondary outcome was safety. Results Four RCTs consisting of 1,757 patients were included, with linezolid (LZD) as a comparator drug. For clinical efficacy, OMC was not inferior to LZD in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) (OR: 1.24, 95% Cl: 0.93, 1.66, P = 0.15) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (OR: 1.92, 95% Cl: 0.94, 3.92, P = 0.07). For microbiological response, OMC was numerically higher than LZD in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) (OR: 1.74, 95% Cl: 0.81, 3.74, P = 0.16) and microbiological MITT (micro-MITT) populations (OR: 1.27, 95% Cl: 0.92, 1.76, P = 0.14). No significant difference was found in subpopulations of monomicrobial or polymicrobial mixed infection populations. The mortality and adverse event rates were similar between OMC and LZD. Conclusions OMC was as good as LZD in terms of clinical efficacy and microbiological response, and has similar safety issues in treating cSSTIs. OMC might be a promising option for treating cSSTIs in adult patients.
Liang et al. (Mon,) studied this question.