Distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria from adults with community-acquired pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections in France: the nationwide French PREMIUM study

Economic analysis of ceftaroline fosamil for treating community-acquired pneumonia in Spain

Background: Adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impose significant burden upon limited hospital resources. To achieve early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure, the choice of initial antibiotic therapy is pivotal.Methods: A cost-consequences model was developed to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other antibiotic therapies (ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin) for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with moderate/severe CAP (PORT score III-IV) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).Findings: Compared with ceftriaxone, the model predicted an increase in the number of CFT-treated patients discharged early (PDE) (30.6% vs. 26.1%) while decreasing initial antibiotic failures (3.8% vs. 7.6%). For patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, CFT was cost-saving vs. ceftriaxone (by 1.2%) and significantly increased PDE (32.1% vs. 24.6%). CFT resulted in cost-saving vs. levofloxacin, due lower initial antibiotic therapy costs and increased PDE (30.6% vs. 14.9%). Moxifloxacin and co-amoxiclav early response rate of 53.63% and 54.24% resulted in cost neutrality vs. CFT, with direct comparison hampered by the significantly different early response criteria utilized in the literature.Conclusions: Despite a higher unit cost, CFT is a reasonable alternative to other agents for adults hospitalized with moderate/severe CAP, given the projected higher PDE achieved with similar or lower total costs.

Comparative in vitro activity of ceftaroline and comparator agents against nosocomial Gram-negative and Gram-positive clinically significant bacterial isolates from patients in a teaching hospital in Kuwait

The objective was to test the in vitro activities of ceftaroline and comparator agents against clinical isolates of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Isolates were identified with VITEK II. Susceptibility testing was with E test. A total of 1264 isolates were tested. Compared to other cephalosporins, ceftaroline demonstrated excellent in vitro activities (MIC90, ≤0.5 mg/L) against Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp. and Haemophilus influenzae. When matched with the comparator cephalosporins, ceftaroline demonstrated the greatest activity against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), with MIC90 of 0.25 mg/L. Ceftaroline's MIC90s against both community-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and hospital-acquired MRSA were 0.5 and 1 mg/L, respectively. Major discrepancies were noted between E test and disc diffusion tests for ceftaroline only against 16 Gram-negative and 16 Gram-positive isolates. Ceftaroline demonstrated an excellent in vitro activity against the majority of clinically significant Gram-negative and Gram-positive isolates obtained from proven cases of bacterial infections.

In vitro activity of ceftobiprole on 440 Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from bronchopulmonary infections

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole on 440 Staphylococcus aureus clinical strains isolated from bronchopulmonary infections (2010-2014).

METHODS

S. aureus isolates were characterized for methicillin resistance, PVL status, and clonal complex. All isolates were tested for minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) determination by broth microdilution method for ceftobiprole, ceftaroline fosamil, and comparator antibiotics (linezolid, tigecycline, vancomycin, and daptomycin).

RESULTS

A total of 325 (74%) strains were methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and 115 (26%) were methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA); 105 (24%) S. aureus strains were PVL-positive, including 35.2% (37/105) MRSA and 64.8% (68/105) MSSA. Ceftobiprole was highly active against S. aureus with MIC₉₀ of 1 mg/L, MICs ranging between 0.12 and 4mg/L (only one resistant strain, MIC of 4 mg/L). MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ were twice lower in MSSA than MRSA. Moreover, PVL⁺ MRSA were slightly more susceptible to ceftobiprole (MIC₅₀ of 0.5 mg/L and MIC₉₀ of 1 mg/L) than PVL^- MRSA (MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ of 1 mg/L). The ceftobiprole-resistant strain was also resistant to ceftaroline fosamil and presented the D239L mutation in PBP2A. The comparator antibiotics were equally active on the strains tested, with MIC₉₀ of 0.5 mg/L for ceftaroline fosamil, tigecycline, and daptomycin; 1 mg/L for vancomycin; and 2 mg/L for linezolid.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that ceftobiprole is highly active against S. aureus and is an effective alternative to vancomycin or linezolid in the management of staphylococcal pneumonia. However, close monitoring of isolates should be maintained to prevent resistant strain diffusion.

Reduced In Vitro Activity of Ceftaroline by Etest among Clonal Complex 239 Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Strains from Australia

A total of 421 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clinical isolates were tested for ceftaroline susceptibility by Etest (bioMérieux). A multidrug resistant phenotype was found in 40.9%, and clonal complex 239 (CC239) was found in 33.5%. Ceftaroline nonsusceptibility (MIC, >1.0 μg/ml) was 16.9% overall. Nonsusceptibility was significantly higher in CC239 (41.1%, 58/141) and in isolates with a multidrug resistant phenotype (35.5%, 61/172) compared with comparators (P < 0.0001). Nonsusceptibility of common multidrug resistant MRSA clones limits the empirical use of ceftaroline for these infections.