ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Cost-effectiveness of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin as the initial treatment for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in China.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and short-term safety of intravenous omadacycline as second-line therapy for macrolide- unresponsive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Real-world safety assessment of ublituximab: a pharmacovigilance analysis based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical studies have shown that omadacycline is non-inferior to moxifloxacin, a widely used respiratory fluoroquinolone, in terms of efficacy. However, the higher acquisition cost of omadacycline raises questions regarding its economic value, particularly in resource-limited healthcare systems such as China.
aimThis study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin as initial treatment for CABP in China.
methodA decision-tree model was constructed using TreeAge Pro 2020 to assess sequential intravenous (IV)-to-oral omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in adult patients with non-severe CABP. Parameter values were obtained from published literature, public databases, and medical service pricing datas. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. A regimen was considered cost-effective if the ICER fell below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $19,012 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
resultsIn the base-case analysis, omadacycline provided an additional 0.004 QALY at an incremental cost of $597.8, resulting in an ICER of $148,700/QALY-substantially exceeding the $19,012 threshold. The cost of oral and IV omadacycline were the most influential parameters. Omadacycline was optimal in 7.6% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations at the $19,012/QALY threshold. Province-specific WTP thresholds showed cost-effectiveness probabilities ranging from 1.1% (Gansu) to 16.2% (Beijing).
conclusionOmadacycline is not cost-effective compared to moxifloxacin as the initial treatment for CABP in China, unless significant price reductions are achieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41222604What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.