Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia

Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients

How to cite this article: Khilnani GC, Tiwari P, Mittal S, Kulkarni AP, Chaudhry D, Zirpe KG, et al. Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S104-S216.

Antimicrobial Drug Penetration Is Enhanced by Lung Tissue Inflammation and Injury

Rationale: Pneumonia is a frequent and feared complication in intubated critically ill patients. Tissue concentrations of antimicrobial drugs need to be sufficiently high to treat the infection and also prevent development of bacterial resistance. It is uncertain whether pulmonary inflammation and injury affect antimicrobial drug penetration into lung tissue.Objectives: To determine and compare tissue and BAL fluid concentrations of ceftaroline fosamil and linezolid in a model of unilateral acute lung injury in pigs and to evaluate whether dose adjustment is necessary to reach sufficient antimicrobial concentrations in injured lung tissue.Methods: After induction of unilateral acute lung injury, ceftaroline fosamil and linezolid were administered intravenously. Drug concentrations were measured in lung tissue through microdialysis and in blood and BAL fluid samples during the following 8 hours. The primary endpoint was the tissue concentration area under the concentration curve in the first 8 hours (AUC0-8 h) of the two antimicrobial drugs.Measurements and Main Results: In 10 pigs, antimicrobial drug concentrations were higher in inflamed and injured lung tissue compared with those in uninflamed and uninjured lung tissue (median ceftaroline fosamil AUC0-8 h [and interquartile range] = 26.7 mg ⋅ h ⋅ L-1 [19.7-39.0] vs. 16.0 mg ⋅ h ⋅ L-1 [13.6-19.9], P = 0.02; median linezolid AUC0-8 h 76.0 mg ⋅ h ⋅ L-1 [68.1-96.0] vs. 54.6 mg ⋅ h ⋅ L-1 [42.7-60.9], P = 0.01), resulting in a longer time above the minimal inhibitory concentration and in higher peak concentrations and dialysate/plasma ratios. Penetration into BAL fluid was excellent for both antimicrobials, but without left-to-right differences (ceftaroline fosamil, P = 0.78; linezolid, P = 1.00).Conclusions: Tissue penetration of two commonly used antimicrobial drugs for pneumonia is enhanced by early lung tissue inflammation and injury, resulting in longer times above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Thus, lung tissue inflammation ameliorates antimicrobial drug penetration during the acute phase.

Systematic review of ceftaroline fosamil in the management of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated with severe disease and high mortality rates. Standard recommended treatments for empiric and targeted coverage of suspected MRSA in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), are vancomycin and linezolid. However, adverse events such as acute kidney injury and Clostridium difficile infection have been associated with these antibiotics. Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam/extended-spectrum cephalosporin approved for the treatment of adults and children with CAP and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ceftaroline has in vitro activity against a range of common Gram-positive bacteria and is distinct among the β-lactams in retaining activity against MRSA. Due to the design of the pivotal randomised controlled trials of ceftaroline fosamil, outcomes in patients with MRSA CAP were not evaluated. However, various reports of real-world outcomes with ceftaroline fosamil for pneumonia caused by MRSA, including CAP and HAP/VAP, been published since its approval. A systematic literature review and qualitative analysis of relevant publications was undertaken to collate and summarise relevant published data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with MRSA pneumonia. While relatively few real-world outcomes studies are available, the available data suggest that ceftaroline fosamil is a possible alternative to linezolid and vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia. Specific scenarios in which ceftaroline fosamil might be considered include bacteraemia and complicating factors such as empyema.

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.

Contemporary pharmacologic treatments of MRSA for hospitalized adults: rationale for vancomycin versus non-vancomycin therapies as first line agents

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains an important pathogen in the hospital setting and causes significant morbidity and mortality each year. Since the initial discovery over 60 years ago, vancomycin has remained a first-line treatment for many different types of MRSA infections. However, significant concerns related to target attainment and nephrotoxicity have spurred efforts to develop more effective agents in the last two decades.

AREAS COVERED

Newer anti-MRSA antibiotics that have been approved since 2000 include linezolid, daptomycin, and ceftaroline. As clinical evidence has accumulated, these newer agents have become more frequently used, and some are now recommended as co-first-line options (along with vancomycin) in clinical practice guidelines. For this review, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to support our findings and recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

Vancomycin remains an important standard of care for MRSA infections but is limited with respect to nephrotoxicity and rapid target attainment. Newer agents such as linezolid, daptomycin, and ceftaroline have specific indications for treating different types of MRSA infections; however, newer agents also have unique attributes which require consideration during therapy.

Targeted Therapy of Severe Infections Caused by Staphylococcus aureus in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Multidisciplinary Proposal of Therapeutic Algorithms Based on Real-World Evidence

(1) Introduction: To develop evidence-based algorithms for targeted antibiotic therapy of infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus in critically ill adult patients. (2) Methods: A multidisciplinary team of four experts had several rounds of assessment for developing algorithms concerning targeted antimicrobial therapy of severe infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus in critically ill patients. The literature search was performed by a researcher on PubMed-MEDLINE (until August 2022) to provide evidence for supporting therapeutic choices. Quality and strength of evidence was established according to a hierarchical scale of the study design. Two different algorithms were created, one for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and the other for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The therapeutic options were categorized for each different site of infection and were selected also on the basis of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic features. (3) Results: Cefazolin or oxacillin were the agents proposed for all of the different types of severe MSSA infections. The proposed targeted therapies for severe MRSA infections were different according to the infection site: daptomycin plus fosfomycin or ceftaroline or ceftobiprole for bloodstream infections, infective endocarditis, and/or infections associated with intracardiac/intravascular devices; ceftaroline or ceftobiprole for community-acquired pneumonia; linezolid alone or plus fosfomycin for infection-related ventilator-associated complications or for central nervous system infections; daptomycin alone or plus clindamycin for necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections. (4) Conclusions: We are confident that targeted therapies based on scientific evidence and optimization of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic features of antibiotic monotherapy or combo therapy may represent valuable strategies for treating MSSA and MRSA infections.

Novel investigational treatments for ventilator-associated pneumonia and critically ill patients in the intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common; its prevalence has been highlighted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Even young patients can suffer severe nosocomial infection and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Multidrug-resistant bacteria can spread alarmingly fast around the globe and new antimicrobials are struggling to keep pace; hence physicians must stay abreast of new developments in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia and VAP.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review examines novel antimicrobial investigational drugs and their implementation in the ICU setting for VAP. The paper highlights novel approaches such as monoclonal antibody treatments for P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, and phage antibiotic synthesis. The paper also examines mechanisms of resistance in gram-negative bacteria, virulence factors and inhaled antibiotics and questions what may be on the horizon in terms of emerging treatment strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

The post-antibiotic era is rapidly approaching and the need for personalised medicine, point-of-care microbial sensitivity testing and development of biomarkers for severe infections is clear. Results from emerging and new antibiotics are encouraging, but infection control measures and de-escalation protocols must be employed to prolong their usefulness in critical illness.

Off-label use of ceftaroline fosamil: A systematic review

Ceftaroline fosamil is a fifth-generation cephalosporin with anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) activity. It has been approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of adults and children with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). However, ceftaroline fosamil has a broad spectrum of activity, and a good safety and tolerability profile, so is frequently used off-label. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the safety and efficacy of off-label use of ceftaroline. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases (2010-2018) were searched using as the main term ceftaroline fosamil and its synonyms in combination with names of infectious diseases of interest. A total of 21 studies with 1901 patients were included: the most common off-label indications for ceftaroline use were bacteremia (n=595), endocarditis (n=171), osteoarticular infections (n=368), hospital-acquired pneumonia (n=115) and meningitis (n=23). The most common reasons for off-label use were persistent or recurrent infection after standard treatment or non-susceptibility to vancomycin and daptomycin. Clinical success was evaluated in 933 patients, and 724 (77%) of these reached this positive outcome. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was reported in 11 studies. In 83 (9%) cases there were AEs related to the use of ceftaroline; the most common reported AEs were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rash and neutropenia. The review results show that ceftaroline may be used in clinical settings other than those currently approved; however, the use of ceftaroline in these contexts deserves further investigation.

New antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria represents a global emerging problem. Delayed prescription of an adequate treatment for VAP has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. New molecules have been developed to face the need of compounds that are active against resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. The aim of this review is to summarize the current scenario of new therapeutic options for the treatment of VAP.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of new antibiotics with activity against MDR have been recently approved for the treatment of VAP, and other agents are under investigation. In this review, the authors summarize the current therapeutic options for the treatment of VAP that showed promising implications for clinical practice, including new compounds belonging to old antibiotic classes (e.g., ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam meropenem/vaborbactam, imipenem/relebactam, tedizolid, cefiderocol, eravacycline, and plazomicin) and novel chemical classes, such as murepavadin. Nebulized antibiotics that are currently in development for the treatment of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients are also presented.

SUMMARY

Newly approved and investigational drugs for the treatment of VAP are expected to offer many advantages for the management of patients with respiratory infections caused by MDR. Promising characteristics of new compounds include high activity against both methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and MDR Gram-negative bacteria and a favorable safety profile.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in solid organ transplantation-Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice review the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in solid organ transplantation. Despite an increasing armamentarium of antimicrobials active against MRSA, improved diagnostic tools, and overall declining rates of infection, MRSA infections remain a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Pre- and post-transplant MRSA colonization is a significant risk factor for post-transplant MRSA infection. The preferred initial treatment of MRSA bacteremia remains vancomycin. Hand hygiene, chlorhexidine bathing in the ICU, central-line bundles that focus on reducing unnecessary catheter use, disinfection of patient equipment, and the environment along with antimicrobial stewardship are all aspects of an infection prevention approach to prevent MRSA transmission and decrease healthcare-associated infections.

Efficacy and effectiveness of Ceftaroline Fosamil in patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a relevant clinical and public health issue worldwide frequently associated with infections caused by Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) pathogens. Ceftaroline fosamil is a promising new antibiotics with broad-spectrum bacterial activity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in community-acquired (CAP), hospital-acquired (HAP), healthcare-associated (HCAP) and ventilator-associated (VAP) pneumonia.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out retrieving both experimental and observational studies.

RESULTS

A total of 2364 records was found and 14 manuscripts were finally considered eligible. The pooled efficacy/effectiveness was 81.2% (I2: 1.2%) in all types of pneumonia. The pooled relative risk of clinical cure was 1.1 (I2: 0.0%). The success rate was higher than 70% for infections caused by S. pneumoniae and S. aureus, including MDR pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftaroline fosamil showed a high efficacy/effectiveness in patients with any type of pneumonia with a good safety profile.

DISC: Describing Infections of the Spine treated with Ceftaroline

OBJECTIVES

Infections of the spine lead to considerable morbidity and a high cost to the global healthcare system. Currently, evidence for using ceftaroline, an advanced-generation cephalosporin active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), in spine infections is limited.

METHODS

Describing Infections of the Spine treated with Ceftaroline (DISC) is a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated ceftaroline for treating spine infections. Patients were included if they were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with a spine infection and treated with ceftaroline for ≥28 days. A control group was identified with the same inclusion criteria as the study population except they were treated with a comparator antibiotic for ≥28 days.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were included each in the ceftaroline and control groups. MRSA was the most commonly identified pathogen. With no differences between groups in age, sex, race or co-morbidities (with the exception of chronic kidney disease), treatment with ceftaroline led to similar clinical success compared with the control group. Multivariate regression analysis did not show a significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical success after controlling for other covariates (adjusted odds ratio=1.49; P=0.711). More patients who received ceftaroline were discharged to an extended-care or rehabilitation facility than home compared with controls (81% vs. 54%, respectively; P=0.024). Side effects and toxicities were rare, including one case of eosinophilic pneumonia in the ceftaroline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftaroline appears to be a safe and effective therapy for infections of the spine, including from MRSA.

Controversies and advances in the management of ventilator associated pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Although national surveillance data suggests that the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) is down-trending, it remains one of the most commonly encountered hospital acquired infections in the United States and worldwide. Its association with increased healthcare costs and worsened patient outcomes warrants continued effort to improve the care of patients with VAP. Areas covered: The increasing prevalence of multi-drug resistant bacteria further drives the need to explore advances in diagnostic and treatment options. In this review, controversies pertaining to the definition and diagnosis of VAP as well as empiric treatment strategies will be discussed along with several developments related to rapid microbiologic testing methods and the use of non-traditional antimicrobial agents. Expert commentary: The application of rapid diagnostic techniques to identify microbial pathogens is perhaps one of the most impactful advancements in the treatment of serious nosocomial infections. This technology has the potential to reduce inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy, unnecessary antimicrobial exposure, and mortality in patients with VAP. In addition, the anticipated approval of new antimicrobial agents within the next several years will provide a much-needed expansion of available treatment options in an era of growing antimicrobial resistance.

Early Use of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the United States Veterans Health Care System

BACKGROUND

Ceftaroline fosamil is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, but it is not known how ceftaroline is being used in real-world settings or how adverse effects (AEs) and mortality compare to clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

This study describes ceftaroline use, AEs, and mortality in US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospital patients.

METHODS

This phase IV, population-based, epidemiologic study analyzed patients ≥18 years old who received one or more ceftaroline doses within 14 days of admission to 69 VHA hospitals in 41 US states/territories from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2014. VHA repository data were linked using unique patient identifiers. Diagnoses and AEs were determined using ICD9-CM and CSS codes. Demographics, AEs within 30 days of therapy initiation, and all-cause in-hospital mortality were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

764 Patients met study criteria. Patients were 97% male and 56% White, with a median age of 61 years and a Charlson score of 6. Diagnoses included skin (40%), sepsis (30%), osteomyelitis (25%), diabetic foot (22%), pneumonia (16%), bacteremia (11%), endocarditis (6%), meningitis (2%), and device (2%) infections. Ceftaroline was used first-line (37%), second-line (56%), and third-line or greater (7%). Patients received ceftaroline a median of 3 days after hospital admission. All-cause in-hospital mortality rates were: overall (5%), skin (2%), sepsis (9%), osteomyelitis (3%), diabetic foot (1%), pneumonia (13%), bacteremia (6%), endocarditis (11%), meningitis (6%), and device (13%). Eosinophilia, leukopenia, leukocytosis, fibromyalgia, myalgia and myositis, and polymyalgia rates were <1% each.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftaroline is used in VHA hospitals for various diagnoses. Mortality was low and comparable with rates from clinical trials. Additional studies comparing ceftaroline to other drugs used in similar situations are needed.

Ceftaroline for Severe Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Systematic Review

Ceftaroline is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, including cases with concurrent bacteremia. Use for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections has risen for a multitude of reasons. The aim of this article is to review the literature evaluating clinical outcomes and safety of ceftaroline prescribed for serious MRSA infections. We conducted a literature search in Ovid (Medline) and PubMed for reputable case reports, clinical trials, and reviews focusing on the use of ceftaroline for treatment of MRSA infections. Twenty-two manuscripts published between 2010 and 2016 met inclusion criteria. Mean clinical cure was 74% across 379 patients treated with ceftaroline for severe MRSA infections. Toxicities were infrequent. Ceftaroline treatment resulted in clinical and microbiologic cure for severe MRSA infections. Close monitoring of hematological parameters is necessary with prolonged courses of ceftaroline.

Penetration of Ceftaroline into the Epithelial Lining Fluid of Healthy Adult Subjects

Ceftaroline, the active metabolite of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil, is a cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This study aimed to (i) evaluate ceftaroline concentrations in human plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) and (ii) develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model for plasma and ELF to be used in PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) target attainment simulations. Ceftaroline concentrations in ELF and plasma at steady state (day 4) were measured in healthy adult subjects for two dosages: 600 mg every 12 h (q12h) and 600 mg every 8 h (q8h). Both were well tolerated with no serious adverse events. The penetration of free ceftaroline into ELF, assuming 20% protein binding in plasma and no protein binding in ELF, was ≈23%. The population PK model utilized a two-compartment model for both ceftaroline fosamil and ceftaroline. Goodness-of-fit criteria revealed the model was consistent with observed data and no systematic bias remained. At 600 mg q12h and a MIC of 1 mg/liter, 98.1% of simulated patients would be expected to achieve a target free drug concentration above the MIC (fT>MIC) in plasma of 42%, and in ELF 81.7% would be expected to achieve a target fT>MIC of 17%; at 600 mg q8h, 100% were predicted to achieve an fT>MIC in plasma of 42% and 94.7% to achieve an fT>MIC of 17% in ELF. The literature and data suggest the 600 mg q12h dose is adequate for MICs of ≤1 mg/liter. There is a need for clinical data in patients with MRSA pneumonia and data to correlate PK/PD relationships in ELF with clinical outcomes.