Clinical efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ceftobiprole mono-therapy versus combination or non-combination regimen of standard antibiotics for the treatment of complicated infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Various bacteria produce complicated infections that are difficult to treat worldwide. Ceftobiprole is effective against resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.

METHODS

This review assessed effectiveness and safety of ceftobiprole monotherapy for severe infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical cure, microbiological cure, and safety of ceftobiprole alone to a combination or non-combination antibiotic regimen was conducted. Until December 20, 2022, we searched a major databases.

RESULTS

This study includes 4168 patients from six trials. Ceftobiprole and comparator-received patients had similar clinical responses for all patient population. Also, the eradication rate of all organisms and specific pathogenic bacteria in microbiologically examined patients was comparable between the groups. Ceftobiprole induced more gastrointestinal side events than comparable drugs, mostly nausea [OR 1.91 (1.26-2.90), p=<0.01]. While skin-related adverse events were significantly associated with comparator antibiotics [6 trials, 4062 patients; OR 0.77 (0.60-0.99), p=0.03].

CONCLUSION

Ceftobiprole monotherapy is effective and safe for severe infections caused by Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteria.

Pharmacotherapies for multidrug-resistant gram-positive infections: current options and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) are a serious concern for public health with high morbidity and mortality. Though many antibiotics have been introduced to manage these infections, there are remaining concerns regarding the optimal management of Gram-positive MDROs.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search on the PubMed/Medline database was conducted. We applied no language and time limits for the search strategy. In this narrative review, we discuss the current options for managing Gram-positive MDROs as well as non-traditional antibacterial agents in development.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite their introduction more than 70 years ago, glycopeptides are still the cornerstone in treating Gram-positive infections: all registrative studies of new antibiotics have glycopeptides as control; these studies are designed as not inferior studies, therefore it is almost impossible to give recommendations other than the use of glycopeptides in the treatment of Gram-positive infections. The best evidence on treatments different from glycopeptides comes from post-hoc analysis and meta-analysis. Non-traditional antibacterial agents are being studied to aid in short and effective antibiotic therapies. The use of non-traditional antibacterial agents is not restricted to replacing traditional antibacterial agents with alternative therapies; instead, they should be used in combination with antibiotic therapies.

Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort

BACKGROUND

To compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

This comparative, observational, retrospective, and multicenter Spanish study included patients receiving outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospitalized patients treated for at least 48 h with ceftaroline-F or ceftobiprole-M between their first incorporation in the clinical protocol of each hospital and 31 July 2022.

RESULTS

Ceftaroline-F was administered to 227 patients and ceftobiprole-M to 212. In comparison to the latter, ceftaroline-F-treated participants were younger (63.02 vs. 66.40 years, OR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.001-1.05) and had higher rates of septic shock (OR 0.27; 95%CI: 0.09-0.81) and higher frequencies of targeted (57.7 vs. 29.7%; OR: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.69) and combined (89.0 vs. 45.8%, OR: 0.13; 95%CI: 0.06-0.28) therapies that were second line or more (82.4% vs. 64.6%%; OR 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.69), and higher rates of infections due to Gram-positive cocci (92.7 vs. 64.7%, p = 0.001), bacteremia (51.9 vs. 21.7%, p = 0.001), infective endocarditis (24.2 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.0001), and mechanical ventilation-associated pneumonia (8.8 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.0001). Ceftobiprole-M was more frequently administered against polymicrobial infections (38.1 vs. 14.0%, p = 0.001), those produced by Gram-negative bacilli (19.7 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.0001), nosocomial pneumonia (33 vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0001), and skin and soft-tissue infections (25.4 vs. 10.1%, p = 0.0001). Patients treated with ceftaroline-F had a longer hospital stay (36 (IQR: 19-60) vs. 19.50 (IQR: 12-30.75, p = 0.0001) days), with no difference in infection-related mortality at 14 (13.2 vs. 8.0%, p = 0.078) or 28 (4.8 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.415) days or in dropout rate for adverse effects (2.2 vs. 0.9%; p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The fifth-generation cephalosporins, ceftaroline-F and ceftobiprole-M, are safe and effective in real life, with no difference between them in health outcomes.

Cefto Real-Life Study: Real-World Data on the Use of Ceftobiprole in a Multicenter Spanish Cohort

BACKGROUND

Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin that has been approved in Europe solely for the treatment of community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia. The objective was to analyze the use of ceftobiprole medocaril (Cefto-M) in Spanish clinical practice in patients with infections in hospital or outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT).

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients treated from 1 September 2021 to 31 December 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 249 individuals were enrolled, aged 66.6 ± 15.4 years, of whom 59.4% were male with a Charlson index of four (IQR 2-6), 13.7% had COVID-19, and 4.8% were in an intensive care unit (ICU). The most frequent type of infection was respiratory (55.8%), followed by skin and soft tissue infection (21.7%). Cefto-M was administered to 67.9% of the patients as an empirical treatment, in which was administered as monotherapy for 7 days (5-10) in 53.8% of cases. The infection-related mortality was 11.2%. The highest mortality rates were identified for ventilator-associated pneumonia (40%) and infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococus aureus (20.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16.1%). The mortality-related factors were age (OR: 1.1, 95%CI (1.04-1.16)), ICU admission (OR: 42.02, 95%CI (4.49-393.4)), and sepsis/septic shock (OR: 2.94, 95%CI (1.01-8.54)).

CONCLUSIONS

In real life, Cefto-M is a safe antibiotic, comprising only half of prescriptions for respiratory infections, that is mainly administered as rescue therapy in pluripathological patients with severe infectious diseases.

Clinical evidence supporting ceftaroline fosamil and ceftobiprole for complicated skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole are advanced generation cephalosporins with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This review summarizes their clinical efficacy for complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Both these agents retain excellent in vitro activity against both MRSA and Gram-negative isolates from patients with CSSTIs. Both these agents are registered for the management of cSSTIs based on the results of large scale phase III noninferiority trials. Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole are noninferior to the combination of vancomycin and aztreonam as this was assessed by their clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure visits. Furthermore, ceftobiprole is noninferior to comparators for the achievement of early clinical success at 72 h. Ceftaroline achieves 81% clinical cure against diabetic foot infections.

SUMMARY

Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole can be used as monotherapy for the treatment of cSSTIs.

Anti-MRSA quinolones for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTS

This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) quinolones for treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant articles from inception to 21 July 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA quinolones with other antibiotics for treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. A total of 1,264 and 1,307 participants received the anti-MRSA quinolone-based study group and the control group. In the study group receiving anti-MRSA quinolone-based treatment, 935, 246, and 83 patients received delafloxacin, levonadifloxacin, and acorafloxacin, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the clinical cure rate at test of cure between the study and control groups (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.29; I² = 0%). In patients with MRSA-associated ABSSSIs, the clinical cure rate (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65; I² = 0%) and microbiological response rate (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.48-3.21; I² = 0%) of anti-MRSA quinolones were similar to those of other antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of anti-MRSA quinolone-based treatment is comparable to that of other anti-MRSA antibiotics for treating ABSSSIs.

Anti-MRSA Cephalosporin versus Vancomycin-Based Treatment for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90–1.23; I² = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40–0.97; I² = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07–1.85; I² = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment.