Scholarlink

Background <p>Gepotidacin is a novel triazaacenaphthylene antibiotic that has been proven to be an effective therapeutic option for several urogenital infections, including <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> (NG). Amidst the rising antimicrobial resistance, this offers a promising alternative to traditional antibiotics. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate its efficacy and safety in treating urogenital infections.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Scopus identified Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing Gepotidacin with standard antibiotics for urogenital infections from inception up to May 24th, 2025. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using Mantel–Haenszel methods. Fixed- or random-effects models were used based on heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>). Statistical significance was p &lt; 0.05. Risk of bias was assessed via RoB 2.0.</p> Findings <p>Three&#xa0;RCTs (N = 3756) were included. Gepotidacin achieved similar microbiological cure rates for urogenital NG vs. controls (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.96–1.27; p = 0.17; I<sup>2</sup> = 85%). Microbiological failure rates were lower in the gepotidacin group but did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69–1.00; p = 0.06; I<sup>2</sup> = 49%). Extragenital site cure rates also showed no statistically significant difference (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88–1.22; p = 0.64; I<sup>2</sup> = not reported). Clinical cure rates were comparable (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.97–1.07; p = 0.36; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). However, Gepotidacin was linked to a higher rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.31–2.24; p &lt; 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 88%), notably gastrointestinal AEs like diarrhea (RR 4.72; 95% CI 3.59–6.20; p &lt; 0.00001; I<sup>2</sup> = 33%) and nausea (RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.67–6.91; p = 0.0007; I<sup>2</sup> = 84%). AST elevations were also more frequent (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.08–3.44; p = 0.03; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p> Interpretation <p>Gepotidacin demonstrates comparable efficacy to standard antibiotic treatment options for <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> and other urogenital infections. However, it is associated with a significantly higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and elevated liver enzymes, which may impact patient tolerability and compliance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and safety of Gepotidacin for urogenital infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月3日

查看全文
  • Ashesh Das,
  • Umama Alam,
  • Akif Shahid Khan,
  • Debvarsha Mandal,
  • Sailesh I. S. Kumar,
  • Kommu Hrishikesh,
  • Aparna Malireddi,
  • Hanisha Reddy Kukunoor,
  • Venkata Dileep Kumar Veldi,
  • Ali Naseem,
  • Asim Ali Syed

摘要

Background

Gepotidacin is a novel triazaacenaphthylene antibiotic that has been proven to be an effective therapeutic option for several urogenital infections, including Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG). Amidst the rising antimicrobial resistance, this offers a promising alternative to traditional antibiotics. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate its efficacy and safety in treating urogenital infections.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Scopus identified Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing Gepotidacin with standard antibiotics for urogenital infections from inception up to May 24th, 2025. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using Mantel–Haenszel methods. Fixed- or random-effects models were used based on heterogeneity (I2). Statistical significance was p < 0.05. Risk of bias was assessed via RoB 2.0.

Findings

Three RCTs (N = 3756) were included. Gepotidacin achieved similar microbiological cure rates for urogenital NG vs. controls (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.96–1.27; p = 0.17; I2 = 85%). Microbiological failure rates were lower in the gepotidacin group but did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69–1.00; p = 0.06; I2 = 49%). Extragenital site cure rates also showed no statistically significant difference (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88–1.22; p = 0.64; I2 = not reported). Clinical cure rates were comparable (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.97–1.07; p = 0.36; I2 = 0%). However, Gepotidacin was linked to a higher rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.31–2.24; p < 0.0001; I2 = 88%), notably gastrointestinal AEs like diarrhea (RR 4.72; 95% CI 3.59–6.20; p < 0.00001; I2 = 33%) and nausea (RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.67–6.91; p = 0.0007; I2 = 84%). AST elevations were also more frequent (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.08–3.44; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%).

Interpretation

Gepotidacin demonstrates comparable efficacy to standard antibiotic treatment options for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and other urogenital infections. However, it is associated with a significantly higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and elevated liver enzymes, which may impact patient tolerability and compliance.