Single-Center Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics of WCK 5222 (Cefepime-Zidebactam Combination) in Subjects with Renal Impairment.

WCK 5222 is a novel ß-lactam-ß-lactam-enhancer combination of cefepime (FEP) and zidebactam (ZID). ZID is a novel ß-lactam enhancer with a dual action of binding to Gram-negative penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBP2) and ß-lactamase inhibition. WCK 5222 is being developed as a new therapeutic option for the treatment of complicated multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogen infections. We investigated the effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of WCK 5222 in 48 subjects based on Cockcroft-Gault-estimated creatinine clearance (CLCR). We enrolled mild (n = 6; CLCR, 60 to <90 ml/min), moderate (n = 6; CLCR, 30 to <60 ml/min), and severe (n = 6; CLCR, <30 ml/min; not on dialysis) impairment, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) (n = 6), and matched normal controls (n = 24; CLCR, ≥90 ml/min). Healthy control subjects and mild and moderate renal impairment subjects received a single 60-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion of 3 g WCK 5222 (2 g FEP/1 g ZID); severe renal impairment and HD subjects received a single 60-min i.v. infusion of 1.5 g WCK 5222 (1 g FEP plus 0.5 g ZID). Body and renal clearance decreased, and plasma half-life (t1/2) and the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞ [h µg/ml]) increased in a graded relationship with severity of renal impairment for both FEP and ZID. Our findings suggest that dose adjustments for WCK 5222 will be required according to the degree of renal impairment. Overall, WCK 5222 (FEP-ZID) was found to be safe and well tolerated in subjects with normal and impaired renal function. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02942810.).

Single-Center Investigation of the Pharmacokinetics of WCK 4282 (Cefepime-Tazobactam Combination) in Renal Impairment.

WCK 4282 is a combination product of cefepime (FEP) and tazobactam (TAZ) in a 1:1 ratio currently under development for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. We investigated the effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of WCK 4282 in 48 subjects with various degrees of renal function. Subjects were categorized on the basis of their Cockcroft-Gault equation-estimated creatinine clearance (CLCR). We enrolled 6 subjects each into those with mild (CLCR, 60 to <90 ml/min), moderate (CLCR, 30 to <60 ml/min), or severe (CLCR, <30 ml/min) renal impairment and those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis and 24 healthy control subjects (CLCR, ≥90 ml/min). Healthy subjects and subjects with mild and moderate renal impairment received a single 90-min infusion of 4 g of WCK 4282 (2 g FEP and 2 g TAZ). Subjects with severe renal impairment and ESRD received 2 g of WCK 4282 (1 g FEP and 1 g TAZ) over 90 min. The plasma exposure of FEP-TAZ increased as renal function decreased. In subjects with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment and ESRD, the mean exposure (area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity) of FEP and TAZ increased by 1.3- and 1.2-fold, 2.3- and 2.3-fold, 4.7- and 4.0-fold, and 8.5- and 11.6-fold, respectively. The urinary recovery of FEP and TAZ decreased with increasing renal impairment. There were no adverse events reported during the study. The findings suggest that dose adjustments for WCK 4282 will be required according to the degree of renal impairment. A single infusion of WCK 4282 was found to be safe and well tolerated in subjects with normal and impaired renal function. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02709382.).

Plasma and Intrapulmonary Concentrations of Cefepime and Zidebactam following Intravenous Administration of WCK 5222 to Healthy Adult Subjects.

WCK 5222 is a combination of cefepime and the novel ß-lactam enhancer zidebactam being developed for the treatment of serious Gram-negative bacterial infections. The objective of this study was to compare plasma (total), epithelial lining fluid (ELF), and alveolar macrophage (AM) concentrations of cefepime and zidebactam in healthy adult subjects. The WCK 5222 dosing regimen was 2 g cefepime/1 g zidebactam administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 8 h for a total of 7 doses. Subjects were assigned to one bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) sampling time at 0.5, 1.25, 3, 6, 8, or 10 h after the seventh dose. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were determined from serial plasma concentrations collected over 8-hour and 10-hour intervals following the first and seventh doses, respectively. Penetration ratios were calculated from the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h (AUC0-8) for plasma, ELF, and AM using mean and median concentrations at each BAL sampling time. The plasma maximum concentration of drug (Cmax) and AUC values of cefepime and zidebactam increased by 8% to 9% after the seventh versus the first dose of WCK 5222. The respective AUC0-8 values based on mean concentrations of cefepime and zidebactam in ELF were 127.9 and 52.0 mg · h/liter, and 87.9 and 13.2 mg · h/liter in AM. The ELF to total plasma penetration ratios of cefepime and zidebactam based on mean AUC0-8 values were 0.39 and 0.38, respectively. The AM to total plasma ratios were 0.27 and 0.10, respectively. The observed plasma, ELF, and AM concentrations of cefepime and zidebactam support studies of WCK 5222 for treatment of pneumonia caused by susceptible pathogens.

Comparison of Plasma and Intrapulmonary Concentrations of Nafithromycin (WCK 4873) in Healthy Adult Subjects.

The nafithromycin concentrations in the plasma, epithelial lining fluid (ELF), and alveolar macrophages (AM) of 37 healthy adult subjects were measured following repeated dosing of oral nafithromycin at 800 mg once daily for 3 days. The values of noncompartmental pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were determined from serial plasma samples collected over a 24-h interval following the first and third oral doses. Each subject underwent one standardized bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, or 48 h after the third dose of nafithromycin. The mean ± standard deviation values of the plasma PK parameters after the first and third doses included maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) of 1.02 ± 0.31 µg/ml and 1.39 ± 0.36 µg/ml, respectively; times to Cmax of 3.97 ± 1.30 h and 3.69 ± 1.28 h, respectively; clearances of 67.3 ± 21.3 liters/h and 52.4 ± 18.5 liters/h, respectively, and elimination half-lives of 7.7 ± 1.1 h and 9.1 ± 1.7 h, respectively. The values of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to 24 h postdosing (AUC0-24) for nafithromycin based on the mean or median total plasma concentrations at BAL fluid sampling times were 16.2 µg · h/ml. For ELF, the respective AUC0-24 values based on the mean and median concentrations were 224.1 and 176.3 µg · h/ml, whereas for AM, the respective AUC0-24 values were 8,538 and 5,894 µg · h/ml. Penetration ratios based on ELF and total plasma AUC0-24 values based on the mean and median concentrations were 13.8 and 10.9, respectively, whereas the ratios of the AM to total plasma concentrations based on the mean and median concentrations were 527 and 364, respectively. The sustained ELF and AM concentrations for 48 h after the third dose suggest that nafithromycin has the potential to be a useful agent for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02453529.).

Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials of adults hospitalized with pneumonia outcomes research team (PORT) risk class 3-4 community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) receiving ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone. METHODS: Three Phase III trials (clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers NCT00621504, NCT00509106 and NCT01371838) including 1916 hospitalized patients with CAP randomized 1:1 to empirical ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h) or ceftriaxone (1-2 g every 24 h) for 5-7 days were included in the meta-analysis. Primary outcome was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (8-15 days after end of treatment) in the PORT risk class 3-4 modified ITT (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations. Data were tested for heterogeneity (χ(2) test) and, if not significant, results were pooled and OR and 95% CI constructed. A logistic regression analysis assessed factors impacting cure rate and treatment interactions. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates in each trial consistently favoured ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone, with no evidence of heterogeneity. In the meta-analysis, ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone in the MITT (OR: 1.66; 95% CI 1.34, 2.06; P < 0.001) and CE (OR: 1.65; 95% CI 1.26, 2.16; P < 0.001) populations. Results were consistent across various patient- and disease-related factors including patients' age and PORT score. Prior antimicrobial use within 96 h of starting study treatment was associated with diminished differences in cure rates between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone for empirical treatment of adults hospitalized with CAP. Receipt of prior antimicrobial therapy appeared to diminish the observed treatment effect.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis for efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Ceftaroline is a cephalosporin with broad-spectrum in vitro activity against pathogens commonly associated with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of ceftaroline, is approved for the treatment of patients with ABSSSI. Using data from the microbiologically evaluable population from two phase 2 and two phase 3 randomized, multicenter, double-blind studies of patients with ABSSSI, an analysis examining the relationship between drug exposure, as measured by the percentage of time during the dosing interval that free-drug steady-state concentrations remain above the MIC (f%T>MIC), and clinical and microbiological responses was undertaken. The analysis population included 526 patients, of whom 423 had infections associated with S. aureus. Clinical and microbiological success percentages were 94.7 and 94.5%, respectively, among all of the patients and 95.3 and 95.7%, respectively, among those with S. aureus infections. Univariable analysis based on data from all of the patients and those with S. aureus infections demonstrated significant relationships between f%T>MIC and microbiological response (P < 0.001 and P = 0.026, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated other patient factors in addition to f%T>MIC to be significant predictors of microbiological response, including age and infection type for all of the patients evaluated and age, infection type, and the presence of diabetes mellitus for patients with S. aureus infections. Results of these analyses confirm that a ceftaroline fosamil dosing regimen of 600 mg every 12 h provides exposures associated with the upper plateau of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for efficacy.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Secondary to Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections or Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro® Utilization Registry is designed to collect information on the clinical use of ceftaroline fosamil in the Unites States. This report presents data on the treatment of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) secondary to acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with ABSSSI or CABP were identified through sequential review of randomly ordered charts generated from pharmacy listings from August 2011 to February 2013. Data were collected by chart review 30 days or more after completion of ceftaroline fosamil therapy. RESULTS: Secondary SAB was reported in a total of 48 of 1428 evaluable patients (27 with ABSSSI, 21 with CABP). The mean (SD) patient age was 61 (15) years. At least 1 comorbidity was recorded for 74% of patients with ABSSSI and 81% with CABP. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was isolated from 59% of patients with ABSSSI and 76% with CABP. The mean (SD) duration of ceftaroline fosamil therapy was 5.8 (4.8) days for ABSSSI and 7.0 (3.8) days for CABP. Clinical success among all patients with SAB treated with ceftaroline fosamil was 58% (52% for SAB secondary to ABSSSI, 67% for SAB secondary to CABP). Clinical success rates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus SAB were 50% (8/16) for ABSSSI and 63% (10/16) for CABP. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of ceftaroline fosamil as a viable treatment option in hospitalized patients with SAB secondary to ABSSSI or CABP. Further studies evaluating the use of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of SAB are warranted.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic target attainment analyses to evaluate in vitro susceptibility test interpretive criteria for ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae.

To provide support for in vitro susceptibility test interpretive criteria decisions for ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae, as well as dose adjustment recommendations for renal impairment, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) target attainment was evaluated for simulated patients administered intravenous (i.v.) ceftaroline fosamil at 600 mg twice daily (q12h) and simulated patients with renal impairment administered various dosing regimens. Using a previously developed population PK model, Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate ceftaroline plasma concentration profiles for simulated patients with normal renal function or mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. Using these profiles, the percentage of time during the dosing interval that free-drug concentrations remained above the MIC (f%T>MIC) for ceftaroline at steady state was calculated. Percentages of simulated patients achieving f %T>MIC targets for S. aureus and S. pneumoniae based on murine infection models were calculated by MIC. At MICs of 2 mg/liter for S. aureus and 1 mg/liter for S. pneumoniae, the percentages of simulated patients with normal renal function and mild renal impairment following administration of ceftaroline fosamil at 600 mg q12h, moderate renal impairment following administration of ceftaroline fosamil at 400 mg q12h, and severe renal impairment following administration of ceftaroline fosamil at 300 mg q12h achieving f %T>MIC targets (≥26 for S. aureus and ≥44 for S. pneumoniae) exceeded 90%. The results of these analyses, which suggested that in vitro susceptibility test interpretive criteria defining susceptible could be as high as MICs of ≤2 and ≤1 mg/liter for ceftaroline against S. aureus and S. pneumoniae, respectively, provide support for current FDA and CLSI criteria, which define susceptible as MICs of 1 and 0.5 mg/liter, respectively. Recommendations for dose adjustments for patients with renal impairment were also supported by the results of these analyses.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses for efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) analyses for efficacy using phase III trial data from patients treated with a ceftaroline fosamil dosing regimen of 600 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 12 h (q12h) for 5 to 7 days for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) were conducted. High clinical and microbiological success rates (84.7 and 86.3%, respectively) and percentages of time during the dosing interval that free-drug steady-state concentrations remained above the MIC (f%T>MIC) (98.4% had f%T>MIC values of ≥63.3) were observed among 124 microbiologically evaluable patients. As a result, significant PK-PD relationships could not be identified. These data provide support for the use of a ceftaroline fosamil dosing regimen of 600 mg i.v. q12h to treat patients with CABP.

CANVAS 1 and 2: analysis of clinical response at day 3 in two phase 3 trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Scientific and regulatory interest in assessing clinical endpoints after 48 to 72 h of treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) has increased. Historical, pre-antibiotic-era data suggest that a treatment effect relative to untreated controls can be discerned in this time interval. Ceftaroline fosamil, a broad-spectrum bactericidal cephalosporin with activity against Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Gram-negative organisms was efficacious in two phase 3 trials of complicated skin infections (CANVAS 1 and 2) using clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. To assess an early clinical response in the CANVAS trials, a retrospective analysis using a day 3 clinical endpoint was conducted. Adults with ABSSSI received intravenous ceftaroline fosamil at 600 mg every 12 h (q12h) or vancomycin at 1 g plus aztreonam at 1 g (V/A) q12h for 5 to 14 days. Clinical response at day 3, defined as cessation of infection spread and absence of fever, was analyzed in patients with a lesion size of ≥ 75 cm(2) and either deep and/or extensive cellulitis, major abscess, or an infected wound. Day 3 integrated CANVAS clinical response rates were 74.0% (296/400) for ceftaroline and 66.2% (263/397) for V/A (difference, 7.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3% to 14.0%). In the individual studies, absolute treatment differences of 9.4% (CANVAS 1) and 5.9% (CANVAS 2) favoring ceftaroline were observed. For ABSSSI due to MRSA, response rates were 81.7% and 77.4% in the ceftaroline and V/A groups, respectively. In this retrospective analysis, ceftaroline fosamil monotherapy had a numerically higher clinical response than V/A at day 3 in the treatment of ABSSSI.

Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens.

BACKGROUND: Telavancin is a lipoglycopeptide bactericidal against gram-positive pathogens. METHODS: Two methodologically identical, double-blind studies (0015 and 0019) were conducted involving patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) due to gram-positive pathogens, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Patients were randomized 1:1 to telavancin (10 mg/kg every 24 h) or vancomycin (1 g every 12 h) for 7-21 days. The primary end point was clinical response at follow-up/test-of-cure visit. RESULTS: A total of 1503 patients were randomized and received study medication (the all-treated population). In the pooled all-treated population, cure rates with telavancin versus vancomycin were 58.9% versus 59.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -5.6% to 4.3%). In the pooled clinically evaluable population (n = 654), cure rates were 82.4% with telavancin and 80.7% with vancomycin (95% CI for the difference, -4.3% to 7.7%). Treatment with telavancin achieved higher cure rates in patients with monomicrobial S. aureus infection and comparable cure rates in patients with MRSA infection; in patients with mixed gram-positive/gram-negative infections, cure rates were higher in the vancomycin group. Incidence and types of adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups. Mortality rates for telavancin-treated versus vancomycin-treated patients were 21.5% versus 16.6% (95% CI for the difference, -0.7% to 10.6%) for study 0015 and 18.5% versus 20.6% (95% CI for the difference, -7.8% to 3.5%) for study 0019. Increases in serum creatinine level were more common in the telavancin group (16% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point of the studies was met, indicating that telavancin is noninferior to vancomycin on the basis of clinical response in the treatment of HAP due to gram-positive pathogens.

Integrated safety summary of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials: Phase III randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of the active metabolite ceftaroline, is a broad-spectrum, parenteral cephalosporin approved for treatment of moderate to severe bacterial infections, including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This report provides an integrated safety summary of the ceFtarOline Community-acquired pneUmonia trial versuS ceftriaxone (FOCUS) 1 and 2 trials (registration numbers: NCT00621504 and NCT00509106). METHODS: Patients hospitalized with CAP requiring intravenous therapy and having Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class scores of III or IV were randomized (1:1) to receive 600 mg of ceftaroline fosamil administered intravenously every 12 h or 1 g of ceftriaxone administered intravenously every 24 h for 5-7 days. All patients were followed for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring from the start of the initial study drug infusion up to the test-of-cure visit; serious adverse events (SAEs) including deaths occurring up to the late follow-up visit or within 30 days after the last dose were additionally recorded. Scheduled laboratory testing was conducted up to the test-of-cure visit; unscheduled testing continued up to the late follow-up visit. RESULTS: A total of 1228 patients (613 in the ceftaroline fosamil group and 615 in the ceftriaxone group) received any amount of drug and were included in the safety analysis. The incidences of TEAEs (47.0% versus 45.7%), SAEs (11.3% versus 11.7%), discontinuations (4.4% versus 4.1%) and deaths (2.4% versus 2.0%) were similar between the ceftaroline fosamil and the ceftriaxone groups, respectively. Diarrhoea (4.2%), headache (3.4%) and insomnia (3.1%) were the most commonly reported TEAEs in patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil. The distribution of TEAEs based on severity was also similar between groups, and the majority of patients in both treatment groups (∼75%) had either no TEAEs or only mild TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: The data from the FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials presented in this integrated safety summary demonstrate that ceftaroline fosamil is well tolerated, with a tolerability profile similar to ceftriaxone and the cephalosporin class overall, with no unexpected safety concerns being identified.

Review of ceftaroline fosamil microbiology: integrated FOCUS studies.

Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug form of ceftaroline, is a novel broad-spectrum parenteral cephalosporin that exhibits antibacterial activity against typical respiratory pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus and common Gram-negative pathogens. In particular, ceftaroline has activity against resistant Gram-positive cocci, including penicillin- and multidrug-resistant S. pneumoniae, as well as methicillin-resistant S. aureus. The activity of ceftaroline against these phenotypes is attributed to its ability to bind to modified penicillin-binding proteins with high affinity when compared with other ß-lactams. The activity of ceftaroline is not compromised by the ability of H. influenzae to produce ß-lactamase. Ceftaroline fosamil was compared with ceftriaxone for safety and efficacy in two randomized, double-blinded, controlled Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Microbiological assessments at baseline included respiratory specimen cultures, blood cultures, urinary antigen testing and atypical pathogen serology testing. By-subject and by-pathogen microbiological outcomes were assessed in the microbiologically evaluable population at the test-of-cure visit. The favourable microbiological response rates by subject for ceftaroline were 87.0% compared with 81.0% for ceftriaxone. The by-pathogen microbiological response rates of ceftaroline and ceftriaxone were 87.3% and 72.9% for S. pneumoniae, 83.3% and 85.0% for H. influenzae and 76.0% and 70.4% for S. aureus, respectively. Key baseline pathogens such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus were susceptible to ceftaroline, with MIC(90)s of 0.03, 0.03 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively, supporting its utility as a promising new agent for treatment of CAP.

FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Ceftaroline, the active form of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil, is a novel cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against important pathogens associated with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae and common Gram-negative pathogens. FOCUS 1 is a randomized, double-blinded, Phase III study that was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in treating patients with CAP. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority [lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) ≥ -10%] in clinical cure rates achieved with ceftaroline fosamil compared with those achieved with ceftriaxone in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat efficacy (MITTE) populations. METHODS: Patients hospitalized in a non-intensive care unit setting with CAP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV requiring intravenous (iv) therapy were randomized (1:1) to receive 600 mg of ceftaroline fosamil iv every 12 h or 1 g of ceftriaxone iv every 24 h. Patients also received two 500 mg doses of oral clarithromycin every 12 h administered on day 1. Clinical cure, microbiological response, adverse events (AEs) and laboratory tests were assessed. FOCUS 1 registration number NCT00621504 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00621504). RESULTS: Of 613 enrolled patients, 298 received ceftaroline fosamil and 308 received ceftriaxone. Baseline characteristics between treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were as follows: CE population, 86.6% (194/224) for ceftaroline fosamil and 78.2% (183/234) for ceftriaxone [difference (95% CI), 8.4% (1.4, 15.4)]; and MITTE population, 83.8% (244/291) for ceftaroline fosamil and 77.7% (233/300) for ceftriaxone [difference (95% CI), 6.2% (-0.2, 12.6)]. Clinical cure rates for CAP caused by S. pneumoniae in the microbiological MITTE population were 88.9% (24/27) and 66.7% (20/30) for ceftaroline fosamil and ceftriaxone, respectively. Both agents were well tolerated, with similar rates of AEs, serious AEs, deaths and discontinuations because of an AE. The most common AEs for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients were diarrhoea, headache, insomnia and nausea, and the most common AEs for ceftriaxone-treated patients were hypokalaemia, hypertension, nausea and diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline fosamil demonstrated high clinical cure and microbiological response rates in hospitalized patients with CAP of PORT risk class III or IV. Ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of ceftriaxone and consistent with the cephalosporin class. In this study, ceftaroline fosamil was an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for CAP.

Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI). Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies. Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials, the pooled analysis of which is presented here. The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy, compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy, in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat (MITT) patient populations. METHODS: Adult patients with cSSSI requiring intravenous therapy received ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g each every 12 h) for 5-14 days. RESULTS: Of 1378 patients enrolled in both trials, 693 received ceftaroline and 685 received vancomycin plus aztreonam. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were similar for ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam in the CE (91.6% vs 92.7%) and MITT (85.9% vs 85.5%) populations, respectively, as well as in patients infected with MRSA (93.4% vs 94.3%). The rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of an adverse event, serious adverse events, and death also were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline achieved high clinical cure rates, was efficacious against cSSSI caused by MRSA and other common cSSSI pathogens, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. Ceftaroline has the potential to provide a monotherapy alternative for the treatment of cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00424190 for CANVAS 1 and NCT00423657 for CANVAS 2.

Integrated analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: randomized, doubled-blinded, multicenter phase 3 trials of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Ceftaroline, the active form of ceftaroline fosamil, is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against pathogens causing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae. Ceftaroline was evaluated for the treatment of CAP in 2 randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials: Ceftaroline Community Acquired Pneumonia Trial versus Ceftriaxone in Hospitalized Patients (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2. METHODS: Patients hospitalized (but not admitted to an intensive care unit) with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class III or IV CAP requiring intravenous therapy were randomized to ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 h for 5-7 days. Patients in FOCUS 1 received 2 doses of oral clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 h on day 1. RESULTS: In the individual trials, clinical cure rates in the clinically evaluable (CE) population for ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone were as follows: FOCUS 1, 86.6% vs 78.2% (difference, 8.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-15.4%); FOCUS 2, 82.1% vs 77.2% (difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 12.5%). In the integrated analysis, 614 patients received ceftaroline and 614 received ceftriaxone. Of the CE patients treated with ceftaroline, 84.3% achieved clinical cure, compared with 77.7% of ceftriaxone-treated patients (difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-11.8%). Clinical cure rates in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population were 82.6% versus 76.6% for ceftaroline and ceftriaxone (difference, 6.0%; 95% CI, 1.4%-10.7%). Ceftaroline and ceftriaxone were well tolerated; rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, deaths, and premature discontinuations caused by an adverse event were similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone in the individual trials. In this integrated analysis, clinical cure rates for the ceftaroline group were numerically higher than those for the ceftriaxone group. Ceftaroline was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of ceftriaxone.

Ceftaroline fosamil therapy in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections with systemic inflammatory signs: A retrospective dose comparison across three pivotal trials.

This post-hoc analysis compared the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 (q12h) versus every 8 hours (q8h) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (ABSSSI) and signs of sepsis. Clinical outcomes at test-of-cure in patients with ABSSSI and systemic inflammatory signs/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as well as ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against baseline pathogens were compared between the COVERS trial (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q8h, 2-h infusion) and the CANVAS 1 and 2 trials (ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h, 1-h infusion). Ceftaroline exposure among patients in COVERS with or without markers of sepsis was compared using population pharmacokinetic modelling. In COVERS, 62% (312/506) and 41% (208/506) of ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients had ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS, respectively, compared with 55% (378/693) and 22% (155/693), respectively, in the CANVAS trials. Clinical cure rates for the modified intent-to-treat population in COVERS and CANVAS were similar for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients with ≥1 sign of sepsis [82% (255/312) and 85% (335/394)] and for those with SIRS [84% (168/199) and 85% (131/155)]. Ceftaroline MIC distributions were similar across trials. Sepsis did not affect predicted individual steady-state ceftaroline exposure. Clinical cure rates in patients with ≥1 systemic inflammatory sign or SIRS were comparable for both ceftaroline fosamil dosage regimens. Pathogen susceptibilities to ceftaroline were similar across trials. Ceftaroline exposure was not affected by disease severity. Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h is a robust dosage regimen for most ABSSSI patients with sepsis [ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01499277, NCT00424190, NCT00423657].

Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms.

BACKGROUND: Telavancin is an investigational, rapidly bactericidal lipoglycopeptide with a multifunctional mechanism of action. METHODS: We conducted 2 parallel, randomized, double-blind, active-control, phase 3 studies with a prespecified pooled analysis design. Patients aged > or = 18 years who had complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by suspected or confirmed gram-positive organisms were randomized to receive either telavancin (10 mg/kg intravenously every 24 h) or vancomycin (1 g intravenously every 12 h). RESULTS: A total of 1867 patients were randomized and received > or = 1 dose of study medication. In the clinically evaluable population, at 7-14 days after receipt of the last antibiotic dose, success was achieved in 88% and 87% of patients who received telavancin and vancomycin, respectively (95% confidence interval for the difference, -2.1 to 4.6). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was isolated at baseline from samples from 579 clinically evaluable patients. Among these patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection, cure rates were 91% among patients who received telavancin and 86% among patients who received vancomycin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -1.1 to 9.3). Microbiologic eradication among patients infected with methicillin-resistant S. aureus was 90% in the telavancin treatment group and 85% in the vancomycin treatment group (95% confidence interval for the difference, -0.9 to 9.8). Therapy was discontinued because of adverse events in 8% and 6% of patients who received telavancin and vancomycin, respectively. Except for mild taste disturbance, nausea, vomiting, and serum creatinine concentration elevation in the telavancin treatment group and pruritus in the vancomycin treatment group, adverse events were similar between groups with regard to type and severity. CONCLUSIONS: Telavancin given once daily is at least as effective as vancomycin for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, including those infected with methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

Macrolide therapy for community-acquired pneumonia due to atypical pathogens: outcome assessment at an early time point.

BACKGROUND: Therapy directed against atypical pathogens in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is often recommended. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of addition of a macrolide to ceftaroline fosamil or ceftriaxone treatment in atypical CAP. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind, comparative safety and efficacy studies of ceftaroline fosamil vs. ceftriaxone, FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2, enrolled adults with CAP. Only FOCUS 1 included 24-h adjunctive clarithromycin therapy for all patients on day 1. Day 4 and test-of-cure (TOC) outcomes were compared for adjunctive vs. no adjunctive therapy. RESULTS: Of 1240 enrolled patients, 130 patients with CAP due to atypical pathogens alone were included (FOCUS 1, n = 64; FOCUS 2, n = 66). Among patients infected with Mycoplasma pneumoniae and/or Chlamydophila pneumoniae alone, a higher clinical response rate was observed with clarithromycin plus ceftaroline fosamil or ceftriaxone compared with treatment without additional clarithromycin at day 4 [38/49 (77.6%; FOCUS 1) vs. 24/43 (55.8%; FOCUS 2)], but not at the TOC assessment [42/49 (85.7%; FOCUS 1) vs. 41/43 (95.3%; FOCUS 2)]. In patients infected with Legionella pneumophila alone, a higher clinical response rate with adjunctive clarithromycin therapy was observed at the TOC assessment alone [12/12 (100%; FOCUS 1) vs. 14/19 (73.7%; FOCUS 2)]. The unadjusted odds ratio of a favourable clinical response at day 4 with adjunctive clarithromycin vs. no adjunctive clarithromycin was 2.4 (95% confidence interval 1.1-5.1; P = 0.0299) for all pathogens combined. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that empirical antibiotic therapy against atypical pathogens may improve early clinical response rate. This hypothesis is best evaluated in a prospective trial.