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

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Lefamulin versus omadacycline for community acquired bacterial pneumonia: a systematic review and anchored indirect treatment comparison using moxifloxacin as the common comparator' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Table S1: Literature search strategyTable S2: PICOS criteriaTable S3: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria and Outcome Definitions Across TrialsAim: 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.