UNASSIGNED: The 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolones to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) in adults with comorbidities. Fluoroquinolones are effective against both typical and atypical pathogens. However, fluoroquinolone treatment has a risk of adverse effects, and the Food and Drug Administration has issued black box safety warnings for their use. Inpatient use of fluoroquinolones has reduced as a result; however, most antibiotic courses are completed as outpatients and discharge prescriptions account for the majority of fluoroquinolone use. As such, a new treatment option is needed to replace fluoroquinolones. Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic with a broad spectrum of activity and is available as a once-daily intravenous or bioequivalent oral formulation.
UNASSIGNED: This study assessed the safety and clinical efficacy of omadacycline compared with moxifloxacin for the treatment of adult CABP patients with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) risk class II/III and ≥1 comorbidity through a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 OPTIC study (NCT02531438).
UNASSIGNED: In total, 239 omadacycline- and 222 moxifloxacin-treated patients were assessed. The median age was similar between groups (omadacycline: 57 years; moxifloxacin: 58 years), with 26.0% and 26.6%, respectively, ≥65 years of age. Early clinical response was 91.6% for patients with ≥1 comorbidity treated with omadacycline and 91.4% for those treated with moxifloxacin. Post-treatment evaluation results for overall response were 89.1% in the omadacycline group and 87.4% in the moxifloxacin group.
UNASSIGNED: Safety warnings have reduced inpatient use of fluoroquinolones; however, outpatient and discharge prescriptions account for the majority of fluoroquinolone use. Outpatients with comorbidities need an efficacious alternative to fluoroquinolones. Omadacycline maintains the similar efficacy and benefits of fluoroquinolones as a once-daily, monotherapy, bioequivalent oral option with potent in vitro activity against the most common CABP pathogens, including S. pneumoniae and atypical pathogens, but offers a materially different safety profile consistent with its tetracycline heritage. In conclusion, both omadacycline and moxifloxacin exhibited similar efficacy in patients with PSI risk class II/III and comorbidities. Omadacycline fulfills an unmet need as an oral monotherapy treatment option for adult patients with CABP, which will further reduce the use of fluoroquinolones.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02531438, identifer: NCT02531438; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2013-004071-13, identifier: EudraCT #2013-004071-13.

This analysis of data from a Phase 3 study of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections showed that successful oral treatment with omadacycline (n = 368) or linezolid (n = 367) was associated with improvement in health-related quality of life.

UNASSIGNED: Severity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II-IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity.
UNASSIGNED: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72-120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5-10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia.
UNASSIGNED: Altogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia.
UNASSIGNED: Efficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Omadacycline (ZL-2401) is a semi-synthetic derivative of minocycline. It has a broadspectrum activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and atypical pathogens. The objective of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity of omadacycline against recently collected bacterial isolates from Chinese patients.
Omadacycline showed potent activity against all Gram-positive pathogens: S. aureus MICs were low regardless of susceptibility to methicillin (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA: N = 97, MIC50/90 0.12/0.25 mg/L, 98.5% susceptible; methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, MSSA: N = 100, MIC50/90 0.12/0.12 mg/L, 100.0% susceptible). Omadacycline was also very effective against β-haemolytic streptococci (MIC50/90, 0.06/0.12 mg/L), viridans group streptococci (MIC50/90,<0.03/0. 06 mg/L), and enterococci (MIC50/90, 0.03/0.12 mg/L). Against S. pneumoniae, omadacycline was highly active regardless of penicillin-resistance (MIC90 0.06 mg/L) and despite the fact that less than 10.0% of these strains were susceptible to tetracycline. Omadacycline exhibited good in vitro activity against Enterobacterales isolates (MIC50/90, 2/8 mg/L), inhibiting 81.7% of the isolates at ≤4 mg/L. M. catarrhalis isolates (MIC50/90, 0.12/0.25 mg/L) were fully susceptible to omadacycline at ≤0.5 mg/L.
Omadacycline showed potent in vitro activity against most common bacterial pathogens, and even against highly resistant problem pathogens, such as MRSA, penicillin-R and tetracycline-R S. pneumoniae and enterococci. The susceptibility rate of Chinese isolates was similar to those reported in other countries, but the decreased activity against K. pneumoniae isolates in the present study should be noted.

Omadacycline is a once-daily oral or intravenous (i.v.) aminomethylcycline antibiotic approved in the United States for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in adults. Omadacycline pharmacokinetics were characterized in 18 patients with hepatic impairment and 12 matched healthy subjects. Patients with hepatic impairment received i.v. omadacycline at 100 mg (mild hepatic impairment) or 50 mg (moderate and severe hepatic impairment) and oral omadacycline at 300 mg (mild hepatic impairment) or 150 mg (moderate hepatic impairment); oral omadacycline was not evaluated in those with severe hepatic impairment. Safety monitoring included the collection of adverse events (AEs), performance of laboratory tests, determination of vital signs, and performance of electrocardiograms. Omadacycline exposures were similar in patients with hepatic impairment and healthy subjects following i.v. or oral administration, with the geometric mean ratios for the area under the concentration-time curve and the maximum drug concentration ranging from 0.79 to 1.42. Omadacycline was safe and well tolerated. Overall, 13/30 (43.3%) participants experienced an AE; those occurring in more than 1 participant included headache (13.3%), nausea (6.7%), infusion-site pain (6.7%), contusion (6.7%), and dizziness (6.7%), with no differences based on the degree of hepatic impairment or the route of administration. Asymptomatic increases in heart rate were observed; none was considered an AE. These findings suggest that no omadacycline dose adjustment is warranted in patients with hepatic impairment.

Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline, is an antibiotic that is approved in the United States for once-daily intravenous (i.v.) and oral use for treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In this thorough QT study, the effects of a therapeutic (100 mg i.v.) dose and a supratherapeutic (300 mg i.v.) dose of omadacycline on the electrocardiogram were studied, with placebo and moxifloxacin as negative and positive controls. Omadacycline at these doses had no effect on the QTc interval. The largest mean placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcS (ΔQTcS) were 1.7 ms (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 3.30) and 2.6 ms (90% CI, 0.55 to 4.67), observed at 20 min and 2 h after the start of the infusion of 100 mg and 300 mg, respectively. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated with moxifloxacin, which caused clear prolongation of QTcS, with the largest mean placebo-corrected ΔQTcS of 9.8 ms at 1.5 and 2 h. With a linear exposure-response model, the estimated slope of the concentration-change-from-baseline QTcF (ΔQTcF) relationship was very shallow: 0.0007 ms per ng/ml (90% CI, 0.0000 to 0.0014). The possibility of an effect on placebo-corrected ΔQTcS exceeding 10 ms can be excluded at omadacycline concentrations in plasma of up to ∼8 μg/ml. Omadacycline had no effect on cardiac conduction (PR and QRS intervals) but caused an increase in heart rate of 16.8 beats per min at 35 min after the 100-mg dose and 21.6 beats per min at 50 min after the 300-mg dose.

Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is approved as once-daily intravenous (i.v.) and oral (p.o.) monotherapy for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and it is under development for treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI). This is a phase 1b, randomized, open-label study of omadacycline in women with cystitis (defined as UTI symptoms and a positive urine leukocyte esterase test). Patients received omadacycline for 5 days (group 1: 200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 300 mg orally every 24 h [q24h]; group 2: 300 mg orally every 12 h [q12h] on day 1, then 300 mg orally q24h; group 3: 450 mg orally q12h on day 1, then 450 mg orally q24h). Blood and urine samples were collected over 5 days. Investigator-assessed clinical response was determined at end of treatment (EOT; day 6) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE; 5 to 9 days after last dosing). A total of 31 women were treated. At steady state (day 5), the range of mean omadacycline urine concentrations over 24 h across the groups was 17.94 to 48.12 μg/ml. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (including nausea [60% to 73%] and vomiting [20% to 40%]) and were generally mild and transient. Investigator-determined clinical success was observed in 94% and 84% of patients at EOT and PTE, respectively, with similar results across groups. A favorable microbiological response at PTE was observed in 78% of patients who had a baseline pathogen. Omadacycline is partially excreted in urine and appears to be safe and well tolerated. These preliminary results indicate that omadacycline warrants further evaluation in larger controlled UTI studies.