Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ceftaroline Fosamil: A Review in Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

  • Adis Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (Zinforo™), a prodrug that is rapidly converted to its active metabolite ceftaroline, is approved for use in adults and children (from 2 months of age) with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) or community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). In several multinational trials, ceftaroline fosamil was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment in adult and paediatric patients with cSSTIs or CAP. In the phase 3 CANVAS trials, ceftaroline fosamil treatment was noninferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam in adults with cSSTIs. Based on a meta-analysis of three similarly designed, phase 3 trials (FOCUS 1, FOCUS 2 and an Asian trial), ceftaroline fosamil treatment was superior to ceftriaxone in adults with CAP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Teams (PORT) risk class III or IV. Ceftaroline fosamil was also associated with high clinical cure rates in hospitalized children (aged 2 months to 17 years) with cSSTIs or CAP. With its broad spectrum of in vitro activity against clinically relevant Gram-positive [including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates] and Gram-negative pathogens implicated in cSSTIs and CAP, ceftaroline fosamil is an important treatment option for cSSTI and CAP in adults and children from the age of 2 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Russo A, Conica E, Cristini F, et al. Current and future trends in antibiotic therapy of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;22:S27–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eckmann C, Lawson W, Nathwani D, et al. Antibiotic treatment patterns across Europe in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a plea for implementation of early switch and early discharge criteria. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;44:56–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pneumonia in adults: diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline cg191. 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance. Accessed 11 Aug 2016.

  4. Harris M, Clark J, Coote N, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in children: update 2011. Thorax. 2011;66:ii1–23.

  5. Eccles S, Pincus C, Higgins B, et al. Diagnosis and management of community and hospital acquired pneumonia in adults: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2014;349:g6722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. WHO. Pneumonia: fact sheet 331. 2015. http://www.who.int/. Accessed 11 Aug 2016.

  7. Bassetti M, Baguneid M, Bouza E, et al. European perspective and update on the management of skin and soft tissue infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after more than 10 years of experience with linezolid. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(Suppl 8):3–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Musher DM, Thorner AR. Community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(17):1619–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S, et al. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections: summary. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17(Suppl 6):1–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dryden MS. Complicated skin and soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(Suppl 3):iii35–44.

  11. Rodvold KA, McConeghy KW. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus therapy: past, present, and future. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(Suppl 1):S20–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. European Medicines Agency. Zinforo 600 mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion: summary of product characteristics. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

  13. Allergan. Teflaro® (ceftaroline fosamil) for injection, for intravenous use: US prescribing information. 2016. http://www.allergan.com. Accessed 7 July 2016.

  14. Frampton JE. Ceftaroline fosamil: a review of its use in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia. Drugs. 2013;73(10):1067–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lodise TP, Low DE. Ceftaroline fosamil in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Drugs. 2012;72(11):1473–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernandez R, Paz LI, Rosato RR, et al. Ceftaroline is active against heteroresistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical strains despite associated mutational mechanisms and intermediate levels of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(10):5736–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kosowska-Shick K, McGhee PL, Appelbaum PC. Affinity of ceftaroline and other beta-lactams for penicillin-binding proteins from Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(5):1670–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Moisan H, Pruneau M, Malouin F. Binding of ceftaroline to penicillin-binding proteins of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(4):713–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mendes RE, Tsakris A, Sader HS, et al. Characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus displaying increased MICs of ceftaroline. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(6):1321–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Karlowsky JA, Biedenbach DJ, Bouchillon SK, et al. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against bacterial pathogens isolated from skin and soft tissue infections in Europe, Russia and Turkey in 2012: results from the Assessing Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance Evaluation (AWARE) surveillance programme. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(1):162–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Castanheira M, Jones RN, Sader HS. Activity of ceftaroline and comparator agents tested against contemporary Gram-positive and -negative (2011) isolates collected in Europe, Turkey, and Israel. J Chemother. 2014;26(4):202–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Sader HS, et al. Spectrum and potency of ceftaroline tested against leading pathogens causing skin and soft-tissue infections in Europe (2010). Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;41(4):337–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Jones RN, et al. Spectrum and potency of ceftaroline tested against leading pathogens causing community-acquired respiratory tract infections in Europe (2010). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;75(1):86–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Biedenbach DJ, Iaconis J, Sahm D. Activity of ceftaroline and comparators against Staphylococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp. from patients with blood stream infections (BSI): AWARE 2014 Surveillance Program [abstract no. 342]. In: ASM|ICAAC. 2016.

  25. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters: version 6.0. 2016. http://www.eucast.org/. Accessed 12 Oct 2016.

  26. Sader HS, Fritsche TR, Kaniga K, et al. 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(8):3501–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Saravolatz L, Pawlak J, Johnson L. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against community-associated methicillin-resistant, vancomycin-intermediate, vancomycin-resistant, and daptomycin-nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(7):3027–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Snydman DR, Jacobus NV, McDermott LA. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against a broad spectrum of recent clinical anaerobic isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(1):421–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Citron DM, Tyrrell KL, Merriam CV, et al. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against 623 diverse strains of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(4):1627–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mushtaq S, Warner M, Ge Y, et al. In vitro activity of ceftaroline (PPI-0903M, T-91825) against bacteria with defined resistance mechanisms and phenotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(2):300–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sader HS, Mendes RE, Farrell DJ, et al. Ceftaroline activity tested against bacterial isolates from pediatric patients: results from the assessing worldwide antimicrobial resistance and evaluation program for the United States (2011–2012). Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33(8):837–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Biedenbach DJ, Iaconis J, Sahm D. Activity of ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus from pediatric, adult, and elderly patients [abstract no. 338]. In: ASM/ICAAC. 2016.

  33. Vidaillac C, Leonard SN, Rybak MJ. In vitro activity of ceftaroline against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus in a hollow fiber model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(11):4712–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhanel GG, Rossnagel E, Nichol K, et al. Ceftaroline pharmacodynamic activity versus community-associated and healthcare-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus using an in vitro model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(6):1301–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhanel GG, Yachison C, Nichol K, et al. Assessment of the activity of ceftaroline against clinical isolates of penicillin-intermediate and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae with elevated MICs of ceftaroline using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(7):1706–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Steed ME, Vidaillac C, Winterfield P, et al. Evaluation of ceftaroline activity versus ceftriaxone against clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae with various susceptibilities to cephalosporins in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2691–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Pankuch GA, Appelbaum PC. Postantibiotic effect of ceftaroline against gram-positive organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(10):4537–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bhalodi AA, Crandon JL, Biek D, et al. Efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in a staphylococcal murine pneumonia model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(12):6160–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Croisier-Bertin D, Piroth L, Charles PE, et al. Ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone in a highly penicillin-resistant pneumococcal pneumonia rabbit model using simulated human dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(7):3557–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Andes D, Craig WA. Pharmacodynamics of a new cephalosporin, PPI-0903 (TAK-599), active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in murine thigh and lung infection models: identification of an in vivo pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(4):1376–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Keel RA, Crandon JL, Nicolau DP. Efficacy of human simulated exposures of ceftaroline administered at 600 milligrams every 12 hours against phenotypically diverse Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(9):4028–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Housman ST, Keel RA, Crandon JL, et al. Efficacy of human simulated exposures of ceftaroline against phenotypically diverse Enterobacteriaceae isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2576–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Clark C, McGhee P, Appelbaum PC, et al. Multistep resistance development studies of ceftaroline in gram-positive and -negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(5):2344–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Mushtaq S, Livermore DM. AmpC induction by ceftaroline. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(3):586–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26(1):1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Steed M, Vidaillac C, Rybak MJ. Evaluation of ceftaroline activity versus daptomycin (DAP) against DAP-nonsusceptible methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(7):3522–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Bowker KE, Noel AR, Tomaselli S, et al. Differences in the pharmacodynamics of ceftaroline against different species of Enterobacteriaceae studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model of infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(5):1270–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. MacGowan AP, Noel AR, Tomaselli S, et al. Pharmacodynamics of ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(6):2451–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Van Wart SA, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses for efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(12):6348–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Bhavnani SM, Hammel JP, Van Wart SA, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis for efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(1):372–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Canut A, Isla A, Rodriguez-Gascon A. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil dosing regimens for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and complicated skin and skin-structure infections in patients with normal and impaired renal function. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;45(4):399–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Li J, Singh R, Ambler JE. Probability of target attainment (PTA) and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) breakpoint for ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 h and every 8 h against Staphylococcus aureus [abstract no. P1384]. In: 25th ECCMID. 2015.

  53. Riccobene TA, Khariton T, Knebel W, et al. Population PK modeling and target attainment simulations to support dosing of ceftaroline fosamil in pediatric patients with ABSSSI and CABP. J Clin Pharm. 2016. doi:10.1002/jcph.809.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Yang L, Sunzel M, Xu P, et al. Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and safety of single and multiple ceftaroline fosamil infusions in healthy Chinese and Western subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;53(8):681–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Riccobene T, Jakate A, Rank D. A series of pharmacokinetic studies of ceftaroline fosamil in select populations: normal subjects, healthy elderly subjects, and subjects with renal impairment or end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;54(7):742–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH, 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(Suppl 4):iv41–51.

  57. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH, 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(Suppl 4):iv53–65.

  58. Corey GR, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, et al. Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(6):641–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Korczowski B, Antadze T, Giorgobiani M, et al. A multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, active-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus comparator in pediatric patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35(8):e239–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Guervil DJ, Kaye KS, Hassoun A, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil as first-line versus second-line treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). J Chemother. 2016;28(3):180–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Evans JD, Udeani G, Cole P, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in obese patients. Postgrad Med. 2014;126(5):128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Santos PD, Davis A, Jandourek A, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil and treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: CAPTURE study experience. J Chemother. 2013;25(6):341–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. File TM Jr, Low DE, Eckburg PB, 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(Suppl 3):iii19–32.

  64. Low DE, File TM Jr, Eckburg PB, 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(Suppl 3):iii33–44.

  65. Zhong NS, Sun T, Zhuo C, 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(2):161–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Taboada M, Melnick D, Iaconis JP, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(4):862–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. File TM Jr, Low DE, Eckburg PB, et al. Integrated analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: randomized, doubled-blinded, multicenter phase 3 trials of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(12):1395–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Cannavino CR, Nemeth A, Korczowski B, et al. A randomized, prospective study of pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35(7):752–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Blumer JL, Ghonghadze T, Cannavino C, et al. A multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, active-controlled study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of ceftaroline compared with ceftriaxone plus vancomycin in pediatric patients with complicated community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35(7):760–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ramani A, Udeani G, Evans J, et al. Contemporary use of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: CAPTURE study experience. J Chemother. 2014;26(4):229–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Udeani G, Evans J, Cole P, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in elderly patients. Hosp Pract. 2014;42(3):109–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Maggiore C, Vazquez JA, Guervil DJ, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015;11:557–63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Corrado ML. Integrated safety summary of CANVAS 1 and 2 trials: phase III, randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(Suppl 4):iv67–71.

  74. Rank DR, Friedland HD, Laudano JB. Integrated safety summary of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials: phase III randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(Suppl 3):iii53–9.

  75. File TM, Wilcox MH, Stein GE, et al. Summary of ceftaroline fosamil clinical studies and clinical safety. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(Suppl. 3):S173–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Gould FK, Brindle R, Chadwick PR, et al. Guidelines (2008) for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United Kingdom. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;63:849–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sartelli M, Malangoni MA, May AK, et al. World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for management of skin and soft tissue infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9:57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Pan A, Cauda R, Concia E, et al. Consensus document on controversial issues in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14(Suppl 4):S39–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. European Medicines Agency. Orbactiv 400 mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion: summary of product characteristics. 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

  80. European Medicines Agency. Xydalba 500 mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion: summary of product characteristics. 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgments

During the peer review process, the manufacturer of ceftaroline fosamil was offered an opportunity to review this article. Changes resulting from comments received were made on the basis of scientific and editorial merit.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Springer, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 0754, New Zealand

    Lesley J. Scott

Authors
  1. Lesley J. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley J. Scott.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding.

Conflict of interest

Lesley Scott is a salaried employee of Adis/Springer, is responsible for the article content and declares no relevant conflicts of interest.

Additional information

The manuscript was reviewed by: O.R. Sipahi, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey; A.A. Torres, Servei de Pneumologia I Cirurgia Toracica, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; P.M. Tulkens, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium; R. Zaragoza, Intensive Care Unit, Sepsis Team, Hospital Universitario Dr. Peset, Valencia, Spain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scott, L.J. Ceftaroline Fosamil: A Review in Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Drugs 76, 1659–1674 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-016-0654-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-016-0654-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation