Ceftaroline fosamil therapy in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections with systemic inflammatory signs: A retrospective dose comparison across three pivotal trials

Real-World Use and Treatment Outcomes of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infection: A Multinational Retrospective Study

Background

Ceftaroline fosamil is approved for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); however, data on its real-world use and effectiveness in Europe and Latin America are currently limited. This retrospective observational study assessed ceftaroline fosamil use and treatment outcomes in adults hospitalized with cSSTI or CAP treated with ceftaroline fosamil in a usual care setting in Europe and Latin America. Results for patients with cSSTI are reported.

Methods

Data from patients with cSSTI who received ≥4 consecutive intravenous ceftaroline fosamil doses up to May 31, 2019, were collected from sites in Brazil, Colombia, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Patient characteristics, clinical management, hospitalization information, microbiological diagnosis, and clinical responses were summarized descriptively. Healthcare resource use variables were evaluated by clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil.

Results

Data for 132 patients were included (58.3% male; mean age 58.5 years). Most common lesions were cellulitis/fasciitis (62.1%), abscess (34.1%), and post-surgical wounds (19.7%). Pathogens most frequently identified were methicillin-resistant (18.2%) and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (17.4%). Median (range) ceftaroline fosamil treatment duration was 8 (2-60) days (daily doses of 1200 [400-2400] mg); 78 patients (59.1%) received monotherapy. In total, 75 (56.8%) patients had additional antibiotics after ceftaroline fosamil. Clinical response occurred in 118 (89.4%) patients. All-cause 30-day readmission occurred in 13 (9.8%) patients, and all-cause 30-day mortality in 7 (5.3%). Clinical response to ceftaroline was associated with >25% shorter length of hospital and intensive care stay, and with ~40% lower hospital costs, versus non-responders.

Conclusion

Ceftaroline fosamil was effective in treating adults with cSSTI and clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use compared with non-responders, in Europe and Latin America.

Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier

NCT04198571.

Treatment outcomes of secondary bacteraemia in patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil: pooled results from six phase III clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

This exploratory pooled analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil and comparators across six phase III clinical trials in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) and secondary bacteraemia.

METHODS

In each trial, FOCUS 1 and 2 (CAP), Asia CAP trial, CANVAS 1 and 2 (cSSTI) and COVERS (cSSTI), patients were randomised to ceftaroline fosamil [600 mg q12h by 1-h i.v. infusion, except in COVERS (600 mg q8h by 2-h i.v. infusion), adjusted for renal function] or comparator. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at test-of-cure visit [microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population]. Safety outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The pooled mMITT population comprised 1976 patients, of whom 138 had baseline bacteraemia (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 72; comparator, n = 66). Predominant baseline blood pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 29), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 19) and other streptococci (n = 12). Clinical cure rates in bacteraemic patients were 55/72 (76.4%) and 51/66 (77.3%) for ceftaroline fosamil and comparators, respectively, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 822/966 (85.1%) and 717/872 (82.2%). Favourable microbiological response rates in bacteraemic patients were 56/72 (77.8%) for ceftaroline fosamil and 54/66 (81.8%) for comparators, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 825/966 (85.4%) and 719/872 (82.5%). Adverse events in bacteraemic patients were consistent with the known ceftaroline fosamil safety profile or the underlying indications.

CONCLUSION

These pooled clinical and microbiological efficacy data demonstrate generally favourable outcomes for ceftaroline fosamil in patients with CAP or cSSTI and secondary bacteraemia. [Trial Registration: NCT00621504, NCT00509106; NCT01371838; NCT00424190, NCT00423657; NCT01499277].

Impact of Underlying Comorbidities on Outcomes of Patients Treated with Ceftaroline Fosamil for Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Pooled Results from Three Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials

Introduction

In three phase III randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline fosamil was shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). This exploratory analysis evaluated the impact of underlying comorbidities on clinical outcomes in patients with cSSTI pooled from these three studies.

Methods

CANVAS 1 and 2 and COVERS evaluated ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h [q12h]; 600 mg every 8 h [q8h; COVERS]) versus vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g q12h each [CANVAS 1 and 2]; vancomycin 15 mg/kg q12h and aztreonam 1 g q8h [COVERS]) in hospitalized adults with cSSTI. The primary efficacy variable in each trial was clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Subgroup analyses were performed on the pooled clinically evaluable (CE) population, exploring the impact of age and various baseline comorbidities.

Results

Overall, 1808 patients were included in the CE population (1005 ceftaroline fosamil; 803 vancomycin plus aztreonam). Clinical cure rates at TOC were 89.7% (ceftaroline fosamil) and 90.8% (vancomycin plus aztreonam) (difference [95% confidence interval] − 1.13 [− 3.87, 1.67]). Clinical response rates were similar between treatment groups, regardless of age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and in subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, cancer/malignancy, renal impairment, and obesity; within these subgroups, efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the overall cSSTI population.

Conclusions

This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with cSSTI and underlying comorbidities.

Trial Registration

CANVAS 1, NCT00424190 and CANVAS 2, NCT00423657 (both trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 18/01/2007); COVERS, NCT01499277 (first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 26/12/2011).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00557-w.

Ceftaroline fosamil as a potential treatment option for Staphylococcus aureus community-acquired pneumonia in adults

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), is an important aetiological cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Empiric therapy for CAP frequently consists of β-lactam monotherapy or β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy. However, such agents are often ineffective against S. aureus and do not reflect the emergence and increasing prevalence of MRSA in the community setting. Ceftaroline fosamil is a fifth-generation parenteral cephalosporin with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive pathogens - such as S. aureus (including MRSA), Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes - and typical Gram-negative pathogens, including Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The approval of ceftaroline fosamil in the United States and Europe for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe CAP was based on two phase 3 trials (FOCUS 1 and 2), which demonstrated that ceftaroline fosamil was non-inferior to ceftriaxone, a standard empiric treatment for CAP, while exhibiting a comparable safety profile. Although head-to-head trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus comparators against MRSA CAP are lacking, the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in subpopulations of patients not covered by phase 3 trials (e.g. those with MRSA CAP or severe renal impairment) has been demonstrated in the Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) study. As ineffective empiric therapy is associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality and increased costs, ceftaroline fosamil, with its extended spectrum of activity, is an attractive alternative to standard antibiotic CAP regimens.