Ceftaroline fosamil: clinical experience after 23-month prescription in a tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the indications, success rate and adverse effects of ceftaroline fosamil treatment in a tertiary hospital. METHODS: In total, 84 cases from February 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively analysed. No exclusion criteria were applied. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients, with a median age of 70 years, of which, 6.7% (56) were male, were treated with ceftaroline fosamil for a median of 14 days. Most indications were off-label, including 29 endocarditis (34.5%), 14 bacteraemia (16.6%), 5 Central nervous system (CNS) infections (6%) and 19 osteoarticular infections (22.6%). Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently isolated microorganism, including 28 methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA; 33.3%) and 14 methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA; 16.7%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (23, 27.4%). The main reason for ceftaroline fosamil prescription was the failure of previous treatment (41.7% of cases). Treatment was successful in 60/84 patients (71.4%) and failed clinically or microbiologically in 14 (16.7%). Eight patients died for a reason not related to the infection and two were found to have a non-infectious condition. Twenty-two of thirty-five (62.8%) patients prescribed ceftaroline because of failure of previous treatment improved, including eight endocarditis and seven bacteraemia. Adverse effects were reported in five patients (5.9%) including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, transaminases elevation and creatinine elevation; all except one were mild and all resolved after discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline fosamil is a well-tolerated cephalosporine, effective against multi- resistant gram-positive and many gram-negative microorganisms. Our experience suggests that it is effective as a rescue or first-line therapy in other indications than those currently approved.

The use of ertapenem for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in routine hospital practice: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical response to ertapenem in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) at the setting of routine hospital practice has been scarcely evaluated. METHODS: We retrospectively compared CAP cases treated with ertapenem or with other standard antimicrobials (controls) at a tertiary 1,434-bed center from 2005 to 2014. RESULTS: Out of 6,145 patients hospitalized with CAP, 64 (1%) ertapenem-treated and 128 controls were studied (PSI IV-V 72%, mean age 73 years.). A significant higher proportion of bedridden patients (41% vs. 21%), residence in nursing homes (19% vs. 7%), previous use of antibiotics (39% vs. 29%) and necrotizing (13% vs. 1%) or complicated (36% vs. 19%) pneumonia, was observed in the ertapenem vs. non-ertapenem patients. Initial treatment with ertapenem was independently associated with an earlier resolution of signs of infection. In patients aged 65 or older the independent risks factors for mortality were: PSI score (7.0, 95%CI 1.8-27.7), bedridden status (4.6, 95%CI 1.1-20.9) and Health Care Associated Pneumonia (HCAP) (4.6, 95%CI 1.3-16.5). First-line treatment with ertapenem was an independent protector factor in this subgroup of patients (0.1, 95%CI 0.1-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem showed a superior clinical response in frail elderly patients with complicated community-acquired pneumonia, and it may be considered as a first-line therapeutic regimen in this setting.