Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 26–32 | Cite as

Ceftaroline fosamil for community-acquired pneumonia and skin and skin structure infections: a systematic review

  • Maguy Saffouh El Hajj
  • Ricky D. Turgeon
  • Kyle John WilbyEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Background Ceftaroline is a parentally administered cephalosporin that has an in vitro expanded spectrum of activity compared with other cephalosporins yet data is conflicting regarding its place in therapy. Aim of the Review To compare the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline against standard antibiotic regimens for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs). Method The databases of MEDLINE, EBSCO, and Embase were searched up to June 2016. Manual review of references was completed and experts in the field were contacted for unpublished data. Randomized controlled trials of ceftaroline in CAP or cSSSI populations were included. Outcomes included clinical cure, mortality, adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Meta-analysis was used to pool results for these outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for gram positive infections in CAP and infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in cSSSIs. Risk of bias was assessed for all studies. Results Six trials (three for each indication) were included, each of which had an unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. For CAP, ceftaroline was significantly more efficacious in achieving clinical cure than ceftriaxone [risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.19; I2 = 47%]. For cSSSIs, there was no significant difference in clinical cure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97–1.05; I2 = 0%). No differences were found for overall mortality, serious adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, and overall adverse events. Conclusion Ceftaroline is a viable therapeutic alternative for patients with CAP and cSSSIs, yet identified risks of bias and poor external validity preclude it from being recommended as a first-line agent.

Keywords

Antibiotics Ceftaroline fosamil Cephalosporins Community-acquired pneumonia Skin infections 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11096_2016_417_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Orgnanization. WHO Antimicrobial Resistance Global Report on Surveillance. 2014. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112642/1/9789241564748_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 8 Sep 2016.
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. The top 10 causes of death. 2016. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index3.html. Accessed 8 Sep 2016.
  3. 3.
    Prina E, Ranzani OT, Torres A. Community-acquired pneumonia. Lancet. 2015;386:1097–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niederman MS, Luna CM. Community-acquired pneumonia guidelines. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;33:298–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, Bartlett JG, Campbell GD, Dean NC, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:S27–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Bambeke F, Reinert RR, Appelbaum PC, Tulkens PM, Peetermans WE. Multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae infections: current and future therapeutic options. Drugs. 2007;67:2355–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pollack CV, Amin A, Ford WT, Finley R, Kaye KS, Nguyen HH, et al. Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) practice guidelines for management and care transitions in the emergency department and hospital. J Emerg Med. 2015;48:508–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iizawa Y, Nagai J, Ishikawa T, Hashiguchi S, Nakao M, Miyake A, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of T-91825, a novel anti-MRSA cephalosporin, and in vivo anti-MRSA activity of its prodrug, TAK-599. J Infect Chemother. 2004;10:146–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sader HS, Fritsche TR, Kaniga K, Ge Y, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity and spectrum of PPI-0903M (T-91825), a novel cephalosporin, tested against a worldwide collection of clinical strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:3501–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shirley DA, Heil EL, Johnson JK. Ceftaroline fosamil: a brief clinical review. Infect Dis Ther. 2013;2:95–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    File TM Jr, Low DE, Eckburg PB, Talbot GH, Friedland HD, Lee J, et al. FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(3 suppl):iii19–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Low DE, File TM Jr, Eckburg PB, Talbot GH, Friedland HD, Lee J, et al. FOCUS 2: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(3 suppl):iii33–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhong NS, Sun T, Zhuo C, D’Souza G, Lee SH, Lan NH, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of Asian patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority with nested superiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:161–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH, Thye D, Friedland D, Baculik T, et al. CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(4 suppl):iv41–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH, Thye D, Friedland D, Baculik T, et al. CANVAS 2: the second Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(4 suppl):iv53–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Talbot GH, Thye D, Das A, Ge Y. Phase 2 study of ceftaroline versus standard therapy in treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:3612–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJC, Gorbach SL, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;29(2):e10–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aujesky D, Fine MJ. The pneumonia severity index: a decade after the initial derivation and validation. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(3 Suppl):S133–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maguy Saffouh El Hajj
    • 1
  • Ricky D. Turgeon
    • 2
  • Kyle John Wilby
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.College of PharmacyQatar UniversityDohaQatar
  2. 2.Vancouver General HospitalVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations