Contemporary use of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: CAPTURE study experience

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.

Current pharmacotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Currently, several antibiotics are active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and can be used for the treatment of pneumonia. They show great variability in terms of antibiotic class, indication, pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic properties, type of available formulations, spectrum of activity against bacteria other than MRSA, and toxicity profile.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, the authors discuss the characteristics of currently available agents for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia.

EXPERT OPINION

The availability of different agents with anti-MRSA activity, and approved for the treatment of pneumonia can allow a personalized approach for any given patient based on the severity of the disease, the setting of occurrence, the patient's baseline risk of toxicity and drug interactions, and the possibility of oral therapy whenever early discharge or outpatient treatment are possible. Although some gray areas still remain, like the lack of high certainty evidence on the efficacy of some old agents and on the precise role of companion agents with toxin inhibitory activity in the case of necrotizing pneumonia, the frequent availability of different treatment choices, each with peculiar characteristics, is already allowing an important step toward a precision medicine approach for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for Treatment of Pediatric Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)/community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI)/acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) represent major causes of morbidity and mortality in children. β-Lactams are the cornerstone of antibiotic treatment for many serious bacterial infections in children; however, most of these agents have no activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Ceftaroline fosamil, a β-lactam with broad-spectrum in vitro activity against Gram-positive pathogens (including MRSA and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae) and common Gram-negative organisms, is approved in the European Union and the United States for children with CAP/CABP or cSSTI/ABSSSI. Ceftaroline fosamil has completed a pediatric investigation plan including safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic evaluations in patients with ages ranging from birth to 17 years. It has demonstrated similar clinical and microbiological efficacy to best available existing treatments in phase III-IV trials in patients aged ≥ 2 months to < 18 years with CABP or ABSSSI, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. It is also approved in the European Union for neonates with CAP or cSSTI, and in the US for neonates with ABSSSI. Ceftaroline fosamil dosing for children (including renal function adjustments) is supported by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulations in appropriate age groups, and includes the option of 5- to 60-min intravenous infusions for standard doses, and a high dose for cSSTI patients with MRSA isolates, with a ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentration of 2-4 mg/L. Considered together, these data suggest ceftaroline fosamil may be beneficial in the management of CAP/CABP and cSSTI/ABSSSI in children.

Ceftaroline for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A real-world two-centre experience in Italy and Spain

BACKGROUND

Ceftaroline is one of latest additions to the armamentarium for treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to describe the outcome of severe CAP (SCAP) in a cohort of hospitalised patients treated with ceftaroline.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study of patients with SCAP treated with ceftaroline in two hospitals in Spain and Italy. The primary objective was to explore 30-day mortality after diagnosis of SCAP.

RESULTS

During the study period the following were observed: there were 89 cases of SCAP treated with ceftaroline and 53 cases used in combination with other antibiotics (60%). Overall, 30-day mortality and clinical failure were 20% (18 of 89) and 36% (32 of 89), respectively. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were: increasing age (OR for 1 year increase 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.1, P 0.043), presence of solid neoplasm (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.0-15.1, P 0.044) and concomitant therapy with oseltamivir (OR 8.5, 95% CI 1.2°57.3, P 0.029). The only independent predictor of clinical failure was the time elapsing from SCAP diagnosis to ceftaroline therapy (OR for each passing day 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P 0.003). The clinical success rate was 64% (57 of 89). In the subgroups of patients with proven Streptococcus pneumoniae, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection, clinical success was 83% (10 of 12), 75% (three of four) and 56% (five of nine), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its spectrum of activity, ceftaroline could represent an important therapeutic option for SCAP. Further studies are needed to identify the precise clinical success rate against MRSA in a larger cohort of patients with SCAP.

Economic analysis of ceftaroline fosamil for treating community-acquired pneumonia in Spain

Background: Adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impose significant burden upon limited hospital resources. To achieve early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure, the choice of initial antibiotic therapy is pivotal.Methods: A cost-consequences model was developed to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other antibiotic therapies (ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin) for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with moderate/severe CAP (PORT score III-IV) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).Findings: Compared with ceftriaxone, the model predicted an increase in the number of CFT-treated patients discharged early (PDE) (30.6% vs. 26.1%) while decreasing initial antibiotic failures (3.8% vs. 7.6%). For patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, CFT was cost-saving vs. ceftriaxone (by 1.2%) and significantly increased PDE (32.1% vs. 24.6%). CFT resulted in cost-saving vs. levofloxacin, due lower initial antibiotic therapy costs and increased PDE (30.6% vs. 14.9%). Moxifloxacin and co-amoxiclav early response rate of 53.63% and 54.24% resulted in cost neutrality vs. CFT, with direct comparison hampered by the significantly different early response criteria utilized in the literature.Conclusions: Despite a higher unit cost, CFT is a reasonable alternative to other agents for adults hospitalized with moderate/severe CAP, given the projected higher PDE achieved with similar or lower total costs.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an overview of basic and clinical research

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the most successful modern pathogens. The same organism that lives as a commensal and is transmitted in both health-care and community settings is also a leading cause of bacteraemia, endocarditis, skin and soft tissue infections, bone and joint infections and hospital-acquired infections. Genetically diverse, the epidemiology of MRSA is primarily characterized by the serial emergence of epidemic strains. Although its incidence has recently declined in some regions, MRSA still poses a formidable clinical threat, with persistently high morbidity and mortality. Successful treatment remains challenging and requires the evaluation of both novel antimicrobials and adjunctive aspects of care, such as infectious disease consultation, echocardiography and source control. In this Review, we provide an overview of basic and clinical MRSA research and summarize the expansive body of literature on the epidemiology, transmission, genetic diversity, evolution, surveillance and treatment of MRSA.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ceftaroline fosamil as first-line versus second-line treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP)

The Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro(®) Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) is a multicenter registry study of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil in the US. Data for this analysis were collected between August 2011 and February 2013 at US study centres by randomly ordered chart review. Clinical success rates among ABSSSI patients were >81% when ceftaroline fosamil was used as first- or second-line therapy, including monotherapy and concurrent therapy. Among CABP patients, clinical success rates were >77% among first-line and second-line patients and patients who received first-line concurrent therapy or second line monotherapy or concurrent therapy. For CABP patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil as first-line monotherapy, the clinical success rate was 70%. Ceftaroline fosamil is an effective treatment option for patients with ABSSSI or CABP with similar clinical success rates when used as first-line or second-line treatment.

In vitro activity of human-simulated epithelial lining fluid exposures of ceftaroline, ceftriaxone, and vancomycin against methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) and -resistant (MRSA) strains, is an important pathogen of bacterial pneumonia. As antibiotic concentrations at the site of infection are responsible for killing, we investigated the activity of human-simulated epithelial lining fluid (ELF) exposures of three antibiotics (ceftaroline, ceftriaxone, and vancomycin) commonly used for treatment of S. aureus pneumonia. An in vitro pharmacodynamic model was used to simulate ELF exposures of vancomycin (1 g every 12 h [q12h]), ceftaroline (600 mg q12h and q8h), and ceftriaxone (2 g q24h and q12h). Four S. aureus isolates (2 MSSA and 2 MRSA) were evaluated over 72 h with a starting inoculum of ∼ 10(6) CFU/ml. Time-kill curves were constructed, and microbiological response (change in log10 CFU/ml from 0 h and the area under the bacterial killing and regrowth curve [AUBC]) was assessed in duplicate. The change in 72-h log10 CFU/ml was largest for ceftaroline q8h (reductions of >3 log10 CFU/ml against all strains). This regimen also achieved the lowest AUBC against all organisms (P < 0.05). Vancomycin produced reliable bacterial reductions of 0.9 to 3.3 log10 CFU/ml, while the activity of ceftaroline q12h was more variable (reductions of 0.2 to 2.3 log10 CFU/ml against 3 of 4 strains). Both regimens of ceftriaxone were poorly active against MSSA tested (0.1 reduction to a 1.8-log10 CFU/ml increase). Against these S. aureus isolates, ELF exposures of ceftaroline 600 mg q8h exhibited improved antibacterial activity compared with ceftaroline 600 mg q12h and vancomycin, and therefore, this q8h regimen deserves further evaluation for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia. These data also suggest that ceftriaxone should be avoided for S. aureus pneumonia.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: from FOCUS to CAPTURE

Ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline hereafter) is the latest addition to the armamentarium for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). It is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which is a recent FDA indication that centers on individuals with documented bacterial pneumonias that arise in the community setting. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the major findings from the Phase III CAP clinical trials as well as the clinical experience with ceftaroline among patients with CAP in the “Ceftaroline Assessment Program and Teflaro^® Utilization Registry” (CAPTURE). In its two Phase III CAP trials, ceftaroline was compared to ceftriaxone among adults with radiographically confirmed CAP requiring hospitalization who were classified as Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV. Among patients with CAP, clinical success at test of cure was 84.3% vs 77.7% (difference 6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–11.8%) in those treated with ceftaroline and ceftriaxone, respectively, across the two Phase III clinical trials. Among patients with a culture-confirmed CABP, day 4 response rates were numerically higher, albeit non-significant, among patients that received ceftaroline vs. ceftriaxone (69.5% for ceftaroline vs. 59.4% for ceftriaxone, difference 10.1%, 95% CI, −0.6% to 20.6%). The efficacy of ceftaroline is supported by real-world observational data from CAPTURE for patients with both CAP and CABP. In addition, the CAPTURE program afforded an opportunity to assess the outcomes of patients who were excluded or limited in the original Phase III trials in a non-comparative fashion. These underrepresented patient populations with CAP included: patients that received prior antibiotics, patients in the ICU, patients with severe renal dysfunction, and those with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from respiratory or blood culture. As CAPTURE is a retrospective, non-comparator convenience sample registry, all the findings need to be interpreted with caution.