Dataset Information

Use of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Osteomyelitis: CAPTURE Study Experience.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Johnson LB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6385445 | biostudies-other | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundCeftaroline 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.ObjectiveThis study describes ceftaroline use, AEs, and mortality in US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospital patients.MethodsThis 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.Results764 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.ConclusionsCeftaroline 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.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients.MethodsThis 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.ResultsCeftaroline-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).ConclusionsThe fifth-generation cephalosporins, ceftaroline-F and ceftobiprole-M, are safe and effective in real life, with no difference between them in health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of abuse, diversion, and web-based endorsement of tapentadol (extended-release [ER], immediate-release [IR]) has been characterized as low compared with other prescription opioids. Little is known about individual experience with tapentadol nonmedical use (NMU).ObjectiveThis study aims to pilot web-based survey technologies to investigate the motivation for tapentadol NMU, sources of procurement, routes of administration, tampering methods, doses used, and impressions of tapentadol products (Nucynta and Nucynta ER).MethodsRecruitment flyers and banner advertisements were placed on the Bluelight website [DragonByte Technologies Ltd] with a link to a web-based survey (Qualtrics) designed to query about individuals' lifetime tapentadol NMU. This web-based survey was followed by an interactive web-based chat (Cryptocat) with respondents who were willing to be contacted. Respondents were queried about sources for obtaining tapentadol, motives for use, routes of administration, tampering methods, drugs used in combination, tablet strengths and dosages, and reasons for continued or discontinued use. Desirability and attractiveness for NMU was rated.ResultsWeb-based recruitment successfully attracted difficult-to-find study participants. A total of 78 participants reported that tapentadol was obtained from friends and family (ER 11/30, 37%; IR 18/67, 27%), the internet (ER 11/30, 37%; IR 12/67, 18%) or participants' own prescriptions from a doctor (ER 9/30, 30%; IR 17/67, 25%). It was used nonmedically for pain relief (ER 18/30, 60%; IR 33/67, 49%) and multiple psychotropic effects, including relaxation (ER 13/30, 43%; IR 29/67, 43%), reduction in depression or anxiety (ER 7/30, 23%; IR 30/67, 45%), or getting high (ER 12/30, 40%; IR 33/67, 49%). Tapentadol was primarily swallowed (ER 22/30, 73%; IR 55/67, 82%), although snorting (ER 2/30, 7%; IR 8/67, 12%) and injection (ER 2/30, 7%; IR 5/67, 8%) were also reported. The preferred dose for NMU was 100 mg (both ER and IR). The participants reported tapentadol use with benzodiazepines (ER 12/21, 57%; IR 28/47, 60%). Most participants had discontinued tapentadol NMU at the time of survey completion (ER 22/30, 73%; IR 55/67, 82%). Reasons for discontinued ER NMU included side effects (10/22, 46%) and lack of effective treatment (10/22, 46%). Reasons for discontinued IR NMU included lack of access (26/55, 47%) and better NMU options (IR 21/55, 38%). Few individuals were willing to divulge identifying information about themselves for the interactive chat (8/78, 10%), demonstrating the strength of anonymous, web-based surveys. Interactive chat supported the survey findings. A subgroup of participants (4/78, 5%) reported hallucinogenic side effects with high doses.ConclusionsWeb-based surveys can successfully recruit individuals who report drug NMU and those who are difficult to find. Tapentadol NMU appears to occur primarily for pain relief and for its psychotropic effects. Although it was liked by some, tapentadol did not receive a robust pattern of endorsement for NMU.

Dataset Information

Use of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Osteomyelitis: CAPTURE Study Experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets