Dataset Information

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of the Phase 3 COVERS Randomized Trial of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm²) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5-14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS.

Results

Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

SUBMITTER: Sanchez-Garcia M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7452975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Osteomyelitis is often challenging to treat. This analysis examined the clinical experience of patients with gram-positive osteomyelitis treated with ceftaroline fosamil in the phase 4 Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro® Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) study. METHODS:Data including patient demographics, past illnesses, risk factors, disease characteristics, antibiotic use, pathogens isolated, and clinical outcome were collected between September 2013 and February 2015 by review of randomly ordered patient charts from participating sites in the United States. Clinical success was defined as discontinuation of ceftaroline fosamil following clinical cure with no further need for antibiotics or clinical improvement with switch to another antibiotic treatment. RESULTS:A total of 150 patients with gram-positive osteomyelitis were treated with ceftaroline fosamil. Most patients (117/150; 78.0%) were treated with 600 mg ceftaroline fosamil per dose; 143/150 patients (95.3%) received a dose every 12 h. The majority (89/150 patients; 59.3%) had been previously diagnosed with diabetes mellitus or peripheral arterial disease. Osteomyelitis was associated with hardware in 32/150 patients (21.3%). Methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; MSSA) were the most commonly isolated pathogens, observed in 93/150 (62.0%) and 21/150 (14.0%) patients, respectively. Clinical success with ceftaroline fosamil therapy was observed in 139/150 (92.7%) patients overall, 81/89 (91.0%) patients with diabetes or peripheral arterial disease, and 18/20 (90.0%) patients who had hardware implanted before ceftaroline fosamil therapy (none had hardware removed during therapy). Patients who received prior antibiotic therapy or ceftaroline fosamil as monotherapy experienced clinical success rates of 93.9% (107/114) and 91% (91/100), respectively. Among patients who received concurrent antibiotic therapy, the clinical success rate was 96.0% (48/50). Patients who were infected with MRSA or MSSA had clinical success rates of 92.5% (86/93) and 100% (21/21), respectively. A total of 2/150 (1.3%) patients discontinued ceftaroline fosamil therapy because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Clinical success rates with ceftaroline fosamil were high in patients with gram-positive osteomyelitis, including those with diabetes or peripheral arterial disease and those with MRSA or MSSA.

Project description: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.