Evidence Hub

Efficacy and short-term safety of intravenous omadacycline as second-line therapy for macrolide- unresponsive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children: a retrospective cohort study

Yu Y, Zhang T, Xia Y, Sun Y

Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026

64 participants

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and short-term safety of omadacycline as second-line therapy for macrolide-unresponsive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MUMPP) in children aged 8-16 years.

Methods: A total of 64 hospitalized children with MUMPP admitted between September 2023 and December 2024 were enrolled. Children with persistent fever (>38.0 °C) after 72 hours of azithromycin monotherapy were assigned to receive intravenous omadacycline (n=18) or continued azithromycin (n=46). Omadacycline was dosed according to body surface area (BSA)-based scaling from the approved adult regimen (loading dose on day 1; maintenance dose once daily for 7 days). Primary outcome: time to defervescence (TTD). Secondary outcomes: 72-hour defervescence rate, radiological improvement, corticosteroid use, and adverse events. Three-month follow-up included dental examinations.

Results: Omadacycline achieved shorter TTD than continued macrolides (50.78 ± 20.71 vs. 72.46 ± 25.61 hours; P = 0.002) and higher 72-hour defervescence rate (55.6% vs. 26.1%; P = 0.026). On multivariate linear regression, continued macrolide therapy (B = 13.43 h, 95% CI: 2.02-24.84, P = 0.022), positive 23S rRNA mutation status (B = 20.85 h, 95% CI: 10.94-30.77, P<0.001), and systemic corticosteroid use (B = 21.21 h, 95% CI: 10.79-31.62, P<0.001) were independently associated with prolonged TTD. No significant difference was observed in radiological improvement (P = 0.668). Corticosteroid requirement was significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 64 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free