Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Systematic Review
13 March 2026

Lefamulin versus omadacycline for community acquired bacterial pneumonia: a systematic review and anchored indirect treatment comparison using moxifloxacin as the common comparator

Authors: Meiyu Wu, Sheng Han https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5975-3574 [email protected], and Hongchao Li https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5975-3574 [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 15, Number 4
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly among elderly and susceptible populations. Escalating antimicrobial resistance among prevalent CABP pathogens in China, combined with safety limitations of existing regimens, underscores the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies. Lefamulin (LEF) and omadacycline (OMA), recently approved in mainland China, offer promising alternatives, but direct comparative evidence is lacking. This study aims to indirectly compare the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of LEF versus OMA in the treatment of CABP and to explore subgroup differences in high-risk populations. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through March 2024, limited to English-language studies, to identify phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating LEF or OMA in adults with CABP. The Bucher method was used for the indirect comparison, with effect estimates reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Similarities in trial design and populations supported the transitivity assumption. Primary end points were early clinical response (ECR), investigator-assessed clinical response (IACR) at test of cure (TOC) and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death. Subgroup analyses were further stratified by patient age (elderly patients), presence of comorbidities and causative pathogens. Results: Three randomized controlled trials involving 2063 patients were included in this study. LEF and OMA demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of ECR (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.93–1.09) and in terms of IACR at TOC (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.88–1.02). The relative risk of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death in the LEF group compared with the OMA group was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.15–3.02), with no statistically significant difference observed. In subgroup analysis, LEF demonstrated statistically significant superiority over OMA in treating patients with Haemophilus influenzae infections (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03–1.60). No other subgroups reached statistical significance. LEF showed a numerical trend toward favoring in multiple subgroups, including the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and those infected with specific pathogens, particularly in the ECR analysis. Meanwhile, OMA demonstrated potential numerical advantages in a few subgroups defined by comorbidities or specific pathogens for IACR at TOC. Conclusions: Both LEF and OMA have been shown to be effective and safe in treating CABP. LEF demonstrated significant benefit in Haemophilus influenzae infections and consistently favorable trends in high-risk or specific infected subgroups. OMA also shows favorable trends in certain patient groups. These findings highlight the need to further accumulate additional clinical data or real-world evidence to support future comparative research. The introduction of novel antibiotics, such as LEF and OMA, represents an important step toward addressing the pressing challenge of antimicrobial resistance and improving outcomes for patients with CABP in China.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a common lung infection, especially serious for older adults and those with other health problems. In China, antibiotic resistance makes treatment harder. Two new antibiotics, lefamulin (LEF) and omadacycline (OMA), are now available, but no direct comparison exists. This article reviews research and uses indirect methods to compare their effectiveness for CABP, including in high-risk groups.

What are the results?

Based on the study objectives, a systematic literature review identified two confirmatory phase III trials for LEF in CABP (LEAP 1 and LEAP 2) and one for OMA (OPTIC). All trials used moxifloxacin as the comparator, enabling an indirect comparison of LEF and OMA through a common comparator. In the overall population, both LEF and OMA demonstrated comparable efficacy. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested potential differences in efficacy across specific subgroups.

What do the results mean?

The results suggest that both LEF and OMA are effective and safe options for CABP, expanding therapeutic choices and potentially helping to address antimicrobial resistance in China as their innovative mechanism of actions. LEF may offer advantages in certain pathogen-specific subgroups. However, further evidence is needed to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment strategies for CABP.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary data.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Martin-Loeches I, Torres A, Nagavci B et al. ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 49(6), 615–632 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
File TM, Ramirez JA. Community-acquired pneumonia. N. Engl. J. Med. 389(7), 632–641 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Shoar S, Musher DM. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review. Pneumonia (Nathan) 12, 11 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Zhang L, Xiao Y, Zhang G et al. Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study. BMC Infect. Dis. 23(1), 231 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Recent multicenter study identifying the most common community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) pathogens in China, informing subgroup analyses in this article.
5.
Ramirez JA, Chandler TR, Furmanek SP et al. Community-acquired pneumonia in the immunocompromised host: epidemiology and outcomes. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 10(11), ofad565 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Qu J, Cao B. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults in China (2016 Edition). Chin. J. Tuberculosis Respir. Dis. 39(4), 253–279 (2016).
Google Scholar
• National guideline outlining CABP management and resistance patterns in China, providing context for the study’s rationale.
7.
[Multidisciplinary expert consensus on the rational use of tetracyclines commonly used in clinical practice]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 103(30), 2281–2296 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Li X, Wang M, Liu G, Zhou L, Wang Z, Li C. Macrolides use and the risk of sudden cardiac death. Expert Rev. Anti-Infect. Ther. 14(6), 535–537 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Anwar AI, Lu L, Plaisance CJ et al. Fluoroquinolones: neurological complications and side effects in clinical practice. Cureus 16(2), e54565 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Long-Term Health and Economic Effects of Antimicrobial Resistance in the United States. Palmer GH, Buckley GJ (Eds). The health and economic burden of resistance. In: Combating Antimicrobial Resistance and Protecting the Miracle of Modern Medicine. National Academies Press, DC, USA (2021).
Google Scholar
11.
World Health Organization. Antibacterial agents in clinical and preclinical development: an overview and analysis. 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240094000
Google Scholar
12.
Zhanel GG, Deng C, Zelenitsky S et al. Lefamulin: a novel oral and intravenous pleuromutilin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Drugs 81(2), 233–256 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Comprehensive review of lefamulin’s (LEF) novel pleuromutilin mechanism, clinical efficacy, and its role as an innovative antibiotic for CABP treatment.
13.
Eraikhuemen N, Julien D, Kelly A, Lindsay T, Lazaridis D. Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a focus on lefamulin. Infect. Dis. Ther. 10(1), 149–163 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
File TM, Alexander E, Goldberg L et al. Lefamulin efficacy and safety in a pooled phase III clinical trial population with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and common clinical comorbidities. BMC Pulm. Med. 21(1), 154 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Watkins RR, Deresinski S. Omadacycline: a novel tetracycline derivative with oral and intravenous formulations. Clin. Infect. Dis. 69(5), 890–896 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Stets R, Popescu M, Gonong JR et al. Omadacycline for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(6), 517–527 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Pivotal Phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy and safety of omadacycline for CABP, serving as a key data source for indirect comparison.
17.
Wu M, Ding J, Han S, Li H. CO111 Indirect treatment comparisons of lefamulin versus omadacycline for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Value Health 27(12), S35 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Hutton B, Catalá-López F, Moher D. [The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: PRISMA-NMA]. Med. Clin. (Barc.) 147(6), 262–266 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Flemyng E, Moore TH, Boutron I et al. Using risk of bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane. BMJ EBM 28(4), 260–266 (2023).
Google Scholar
21.
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50(6), 683–691 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Kim H, Gurrin L, Ademi Z, Liew D. Overview of methods for comparing the efficacies of drugs in the absence of head-to-head clinical trial data. Brit. J. Clin. Pharma. 77(1), 116–121 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Macabeo B, Quenéchdu A, Aballéa S, François C, Boyer L, Laramée P. Methods for indirect treatment comparison: results from a systematic literature review. J. Mark. Access Health Policy 12(2), 58–80 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Higgins JPT. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414), 557–560 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Kulinskaya E, Dollinger MB. An accurate test for homogeneity of odds ratios based on Cochran's Q-statistic. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 15(1), 49 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Cornely OA, File TM, Garrity-Ryan L, Chitra S, Noble R, McGovern PC. Safety and efficacy of omadacycline for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in patients with mild-to-moderate renal impairment. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 57(2), 106263 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Pai MP, Wilcox MH, Curran M, Chitra S, Garrity-Ryan L, McGovern PC. 700. Safety and efficacy of omadacycline in patients with diabetes in phase 3 clinical studies. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 6(Suppl. 2), S316–S317 (2019).
Google Scholar
28.
Ramirez J, Garrity-Ryan L, Chitra S et al. Impact of age and gender on efficacy and safety of omadacycline (OMC) vs. moxifloxacin (MOX) in community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Presented at: Respiratory infections. European Respiratory Society (15 September 2018).
Google Scholar
29.
File TM, Goldberg L, Das A et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous-to-oral lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: the phase III Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 69(11), 1856–1867 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Key phase III RCT assessing LEF for CABP, providing primary evidence for efficacy and safety in the indirect comparison.
30.
Alexander E, Goldberg L, Das AF et al. Oral lefamulin vs moxifloxacin for early clinical response among adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: the LEAP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 322(17), 1661 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Phase III RCT supporting the efficacy of oral LEF in CABP, included in pooled analysis for subgroup comparisons.
31.
Paukner S, Goldberg L, Alexander E et al. Pooled microbiological findings and efficacy outcomes by pathogen in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 phase III trials of lefamulin versus moxifloxacin. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 29, 434–443 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Murray CJ, Ikuta KS, Sharara F et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 399(10325), 629–655 (2022).
Google Scholar
33.
Faverio P, Aliberti S, Bellelli G et al. The management of community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 25(4), 312–319 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Pletz MW, Jensen AV, Bahrs C et al. Unmet needs in pneumonia research: a comprehensive approach by the CAPNETZ study group. Respir. Res. 23(1), 239 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Faulkner CM, Cox HL, Williamson JC. Unique aspects of antimicrobial use in older adults. Clin. Infect. Dis. 40(7), 997–1004 (2005).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
PharmaCube Database. Drug approval information for moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, and ceftriaxone. Available from: https://www.pharmcube.com/
Google Scholar
37.
Kato H, Hagihara M, Asai N et al. Comparison between ceftriaxone and sulbactam-ampicillin as initial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antibiotics (Basel) 11(10), 1291 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Basilim A, Wali H, Rabaan AA, Eljaaly K. Efficacy of empiric macrolides versus fluoroquinolones in community-acquired pneumonia associated with atypical bacteria: a meta-analysis. Respir. Med. Res. 82, 100931 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
39.
Montes-Andujar L, Tinoco E, Baez-Pravia O et al. Empiric antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis. Thorax 76(10), 1020–1031 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.
Kurotschka PK, Bentivegna M, Hulme C, Ebell MH. Identifying the best initial oral antibiotics for adults with community-acquired pneumonia: a network meta-analysis. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 39(7), 1214–1226 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.
Choi S-H, Cesar A, Snow TAC, Saleem N, Arulkumaran N, Singer M. Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy vs. β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy for hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 62(3), 106905 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
42.
Montes-Andujar L, Tinoco E, Baez-Pravia O et al. Empiric antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis. Thorax 76(10), 1020–1031 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
43.
Choi S-H, Cesar A, Snow TAC, Saleem N, Arulkumaran N, Singer M. Efficacy of doxycycline for mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin. Infect. Dis. 76(4), 683–691 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
44.
Cillóniz C, Rodríguez-Hurtado D, Torres A. Characteristics and management of community-acquired pneumonia in the era of global aging. Med. Sci. 6(2), 35 (2018).
Google Scholar
45.
Chen C, Hsu S, Hsieh H et al. Microbial etiology of pneumonia in patients with decreased renal function. PLoS ONE 14(5), e0216367 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
46.
Cilloniz C, Torres A. Diabetes mellitus and pneumococcal pneumonia. Diagnostics 14(8), 859 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
47.
Yan S, Jing K, Hong Z. Antibiotic resistance profile of Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis in hospitals across China: data from CHINET Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program from 2005 through 2014. Chin. J. Infect. Chemother. 16(2),153-159 (2016).
Google Scholar
48.
Yamba Yamba L, Hansen K, Wasserstrom L, Su Y-C, Ahl J, Riesbeck K. The importance of Haemophilus influenzae in community-acquired pneumonia: an emerging pathogen in the elderly regardless of comorbidities compared to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Pneumonia 16(1), 15 (2024).
Google Scholar
49.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). NUZYRA (omadacycline) Package Insert. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/209816_209817lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
50.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). XENLETA (lefamulin) Package Insert. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/211672s000,211673s000lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
51.
Cuijpers P, Griffin JW, Furukawa TA. The lack of statistical power of subgroup analyses in meta-analyses: a cautionary note. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 30, e78 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|