Ceftaroline fosamil treatment outcomes compared with standard of care among hospitalized patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections

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.

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.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Purpose

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.

Patients and Methods

The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.

Results

CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.

Conclusion

Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

The efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in the treatment of acute bacterial infection in pediatric patients - a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftaroline in treating acute bacterial infections – community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and skin and skin structure infection (SSSI) in pediatric patients.

Methods: The Pubmed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov. and the Cochrane databases were searched up to December 31, 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ceftaroline and other comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infection in pediatric patients were included. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate and the secondary outcome was the risk of adverse event.

Results: Three RCTs were included. Overall, ceftaroline had a clinical cure rate at end of therapy (EOT) and test of cure (TOC) similar to comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infection (at EOT, OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.88–4.25, I²=0%, and at TOC, OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.64–2.91, I²=14%). In addition, ceftaroline had a clinical failure rate at EOT and TOC similar to comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infection (at EOT, OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.22–1.76, I²=0%, and at TOC, OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.24–1.91, I²=0%). No significant differences were found for the risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) in all and different degrees between ceftaroline and comparators (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.37–1.78, I²=56%). The risks of TEAE and severe adverse events related to study drug were similar between ceftaroline and comparators (TEAE related to study drug, OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52–1.82, I²=0%, severe adverse event related to study drug, OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.22–5.44, I²=22%).

Conclusions: The clinical efficacy of ceftaroline is as good as comparator therapy in the treatment of acute bacterial infections – CAP and SSSI, and this antibiotic is well tolerated as the comparators.

Optimizing skin and skin structure infection outcomes: considerations of cost of care

INTRODUCTION

Skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) refer to a collection of clinical infectious syndromes involving layers of skin and associated soft tissues. Although associated with less morbidity and mortality than other common skin infections, SSSIs represent a significant increasing source of healthcare expense, with a prevalence of 500 episodes per 10,000 patient-years in the United States resulting in burdening health care systems, of approximately $6 billion annually.

AREAS COVERED

Opportunities to reduce costs of care associated with SSSI are highlighted, including transitions of care and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Moreover, we reviewed new antibiotics (e.g. single dose glycopeptides), and the impact of consulting specialists in the emergency department on SSSI treatment outcomes.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

New healthcare models and payment strategies combined with new therapeutics are challenging norms of care. Newer drugs to treat skin infections can move a substantive percent of patients previously admitted to hospital care to the outpatient setting. Additionally, patients can be managed with oral or one time intravenous regimens, improving the likelihood of patient adherence and satisfaction. These variables need to be weighed against added acquisition costs and the development of thoughtful algorithms is needed to direct care and optimize treatment, cost, and patient satisfaction.

Ceftaroline Plus Ampicillin Against Gram-Positive Organisms: Results from E-Test Synergy Assays

In an era of increasing drug resistance and limited numbers of antimicrobials in the drug production pipeline, healthcare-associated infections represent a growing public health threat. When therapeutic options are limited, clinicians often resort to using antimicrobial combinations that produce a synergistic effect on the target pathogen. Novel antibiotics are therefore welcome in the daily practice of medicine. For example, ceftaroline is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin active against a variety of bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, but with limited activity against enterococci, particularly Enterococcus faecium. In this study, we tested the efficacy of ceftaroline against clinical isolates of gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and E. faecium) by the broth microdilution and E-test assays, and then evaluated the synergistic effect of ceftaroline and ampicillin using the E-test method. The time-kill assay was used to confirm the data on selected strains. This drug combination has been recently shown to be effective against E. faecalis and could offer the advantage of cost-effectiveness (compared to other synergistic associations) as well as good tolerability. The E-test was chosen because of its relative simplicity of use that makes it suitable for routine clinical laboratories as a quick tool to guide clinicians when confronted with difficult-to-treat infections that may require an empirical approach. Our results indicate the presence of a synergistic effect of ceftaroline and ampicillin on most of the strains used, especially E. faecium and E. faecalis. The fact that two of those Enterococcus strains were vancomycin resistant suggests that the possible use of this combination for combating the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci should be explored.