Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of Gram-positive endocarditis: CAPTURE study experience

Ceftaroline + Rifampin Versus Vancomycin + Rifampin in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Meningitis in an Experimental Rabbit Model

Background/Aim: To compare the effectiveness ceftaroline-rifampicin (CR) and vancomycin-rifampicin (VR), against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a rabbit meningitis model, to compare the effects on brain tissues in terms of inflammation and apoptosis and to test the antibiotics via in vitro time-kill and synergy tests. Method: Meningitis was induced using MRSA strain ATCC 43300. After 28 hours, the rabbits were split into three groups: control, VR, and CR. A CSF culture was taken at the start (T0) and end of treatment (EOT)-the 24th hour of treatment. At EOT, the animals' brain tissues were examined for inflammation and apoptosis. The study strain was tested for a 24-hour time kill assay. Results: At the EOT, statistically significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of reducing the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) bacterial count, achieving partial or complete treatment response, and exhibiting lower levels of neuronal apoptosis compared with the control group. However, there was no significant difference in all three parameters and in survival between the two treatment groups. The CR group exhibited a noticeable decrease in inflammation than the control group, but no significant difference was found between the control group versus VR and VR versus CR group. Rifampicin did not improve antibacterial efficacy in the in vitro time-kill assay. Conclusion: The CR arm showed better complete response and inflammation, but both treatments were similar in other parameters. CR combination was found as effective as VR combination for treating MRSA meningitis.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of antibiotics for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: an updated narrative review for clinicians

BACKGROUND

Infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are associated with high mortality rates. Optimal antibiotic dosage plays a crucial role in reducing MRSA burden; thus, the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the clinical practice, especially of new drugs such as ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, dalbavancin, and oritavancin, should be implemented.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to examine and summarize the available evidence about TDM of anti-MRSA molecules, with a focus on pneumonia, endocarditis and vascular infections, and bone and joint infections.

SOURCES

We applied 'therapeutic drug monitoring' and 'Staphylococcus aureus' as search terms in PubMed, considering a time frame of 24 years (2001-2024). Articles in English language, non-duplicated, evaluating antibiotic therapeutic target, and role of TDM were included in the study.

CONTENT

In this review, available data for therapeutic target and TDM were critically analysed and summarized and suggestions about the use of old and new anti-MRSA antibiotics were provided, focusing on optimal dosages, tissue penetration according to infection types, and toxicity. Limitations to the widespread use of TDM in clinical practice were discussed.

IMPLICATIONS

The use of TDM may play an important role for the optimal management of patients with MRSA infections and may impact on patient outcomes by increasing efficacy and reducing the risk of adverse events. TDM may be implemented in clinical practice; however, several limitations such as the wide variability in the methodology and the need for skilled personnel need to be considered.

Heartfelt Impact: A Descriptive Analysis of Ceftaroline-Containing Regimens in Endocarditis due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

INTRODUCTION

Infective endocarditis (IE) due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is characterized by frequent treatment failure to first-line agents and high mortality, necessitating use of alternative management strategies. Ceftaroline fosamil (CPT) is a cephalosporin antibiotic with activity against MRSA but without regulatory approval for the indication of IE. This study describes clinical experience with CPT-based regimens utilized in MRSA-IE.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, descriptive analysis of patients from two major urban medical centers in Detroit, Michigan from 2011 to 2023. Included adult patients (≥ 18 years) had ≥ 1 positive blood culture for MRSA, met definitive clinical criteria for IE, and received CPT for ≥ 72 h. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality from index culture or failure to improve or resolve infectious signs/symptoms after CPT initiation.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 51 (34-63) years and 45.7% were male. Persons with injection drug use (PWID) made up 55.7% of the cohort and right-sided IE was the most prevalent subtype (50.0%). CPT was frequently employed second-line or later, often in combination with vancomycin (10.0%) or daptomycin (72.9%). Overall, 31.4% experienced treatment failure and 30-day all-cause mortality occurred in 15.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings illustrate the challenges posed by MRSA-IE, including frequent treatment failures, and highlight the utilization of CPT as salvage therapy. Comparative studies are needed to more clearly define its role in MRSA-IE.

Combination Therapy Is Not Associated with Decreased Mortality in Infectious Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Untreated infective endocarditis (IE) is uniformly fatal. The practice of combination antibiotic therapy for IE is recommended by treatment guidelines but largely unsupported by high-quality evidence. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of combination antibiotic therapy compared to monotherapy in IE through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to 29 July 2024. Studies reporting mortality outcomes of combination therapy versus monotherapy in adult patients with IE were included. Non-English papers and studies with less than 10 patients in the combination therapy group were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies and extracted relevant data. Summaries of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were evaluated using random-effects models. Out of 4545 studies identified, 32 studies (involving 2761 patients) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality between the monotherapy and combination therapy groups (OR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.67-1.20). Similar results were observed in subgroup analyses based on mortality time points, bacterial species, publication date, and type of study. Studies conducted in Europe reported a statistically significant decrease in overall mortality risk with combination therapy (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.51-0.89), though this result was driven entirely by a single outlier study. Combination antibiotic therapy in patients with IE was not associated with reduced mortality.

Update on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of infective endocarditis: A review

Despite advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE), the burden of IE has remained relatively high over the past decade. With an ageing population and an increasing proportion of healthcare-associated IE, the epidemiology of IE has undergone significant changes. Staphylococcus aureus has evolved as the most common causative microorganism, even in most low- and middle-income countries. Several imaging modalities and novel microbiological tests have emerged to facilitate the diagnosis of IE. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment and oral step-down antibiotic treatment have become new trends for the management of IE. Early surgical intervention, particularly within seven days, should be considered in cases of IE with appropriate surgical indications. We comprehensively review the updated epidemiology, microbiology, diagnosis, and management of IE.

New advances in management and treatment of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are increasingly used worldwide, and infection of these devices remains one of the most feared complications.CIED infections (CDIs) represent a challenge for physicians and the healthcare system in general as they require prolonged hospitalization and antibiotic treatment and are burdened by high mortality and high costs, so management of CDIs must be multidisciplinary.The exact incidence of CDIs is difficult to define, considering that it is influenced by various factors mainly represented by the implanted device and the type of procedure. Risk factors for CDIs could be divided into three categories: device related, patient related, and procedural related and the etiology is mainly sustained by Gram-positive bacteria; however, other etiologies cannot be underestimated. As a matter of fact, the two cornerstones in the treatment of these infections are device removal and antimicrobial treatment. Finally, therapeutic drug monitoring and PK/PD correlations should be encouraged in all patients with CDIs receiving antibiotic therapy and may result in a better clinical outcome and a reduction in antibiotic resistance and economic costs.In this narrative review, we look at what is new in the management of these difficult-to-treat infections.

Antibiotic Resistance to Molecules Commonly Prescribed for the Treatment of Antibiotic-Resistant Gram-Positive Pathogens: What Is Relevant for the Clinician?

Antibiotic resistance in Gram-positive pathogens is a relevant concern, particularly in the hospital setting. Several antibiotics are now available to treat these drug-resistant pathogens, such as daptomycin, dalbavancin, linezolid, tedizolid, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and fosfomycin. However, antibiotic resistance can also affect these newer molecules. Overall, this is not a frequent phenomenon, but it is a growing concern in some settings and can compromise the effectiveness of these molecules, leaving few therapeutic options. We reviewed the available evidence about the epidemiology of antibiotic resistance to these antibiotics and the main molecular mechanisms of resistance, particularly methicillin-resistant Sthaphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. We discussed the interpretation of susceptibility tests when minimum inhibitory concentrations are not available. We focused on the risk of the emergence of resistance during treatment, particularly for daptomycin and fosfomycin, and we discussed the strategies that can be implemented to reduce this phenomenon, which can lead to clinical failure despite appropriate antibiotic treatment. The judicious use of antibiotics, epidemiological surveillance, and infection control measures is essential to preserving the efficacy of these drugs.

Safety and effectiveness of fifth generation cephalosporins for the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a narrative review exploring past, present, and future

INTRODUCTION

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infection (BSI) is a major issue in healthcare, since it is often associated with endocarditis or deep site foci. Relevant morbidity and mortality associated with MRSA-BSIs forced the development of new antibiotic strategies; in particular, this review will focus the attention on fifth-generation cephalosporins (ceftaroline/ceftobiprole), that are the only ß-lactams active against MRSA.

AREAS COVERED

The review discusses the available randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies conducted on safety and effectiveness of ceftaroline/ceftobiprole for the treatment of MRSA-BSIs. Finally, a proposal of MRSA-BSI treatment flowchart, based on fifth-generation cephalosporins, is described.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of anti-MRSA cephalosporins is an acceptable choice either in monotherapy or combination therapy for the treatment of MRSA-BSIs due to their relevant effectiveness and safety. Particularly, their use may be advisable in combination therapy in case of severe infections (including endocarditis or persistent bacteriemia) or in monotherapy in subjects at higher risk of drugs-induced toxicity with older regimens. On the contrary, caution should be taken in case of suspected/ascertained central nervous system infections due to inconsistent data regarding penetration of these drugs in cerebrospinal fluid and brain tissues.

New Antimicrobials and New Therapy Strategies for Endocarditis: Weapons That Should Be Defended

The overall low-quality evidence concerning the clinical benefits of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE), which has made it difficult to strongly support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy, has led to a discrepancy between the available guidelines and clinical practice. In this complex scenario, very recently published guidelines have attempted to fill this gap. Indeed, in recent years several antimicrobials have entered the market, including ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, and the long-acting lipoglycopeptides dalbavancin and oritavancin. Despite being approved for different indications, real-world data on their use for the treatment of IE, alone or in combination, has accumulated over time. Furthermore, an old antibiotic, fosfomycin, has gained renewed interest for the treatment of complicated infections such as IE. In this narrative review, we focused on new antimicrobials and therapeutic strategies that we believe may provide important contributions to the advancement of Gram-positive IE treatment, providing a summary of the current in vitro, in vivo, and clinical evidence supporting their use in clinical practice.

Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort

BACKGROUND

To compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

Ceftaroline-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).

CONCLUSIONS

The fifth-generation cephalosporins, ceftaroline-F and ceftobiprole-M, are safe and effective in real life, with no difference between them in health outcomes.

Off-label use versus formal recommendations of conventional and novel antibiotics for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria

The infections caused by multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant (MDR, XDR) bacteria, including Gram-positive cocci (GPC, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDR-Streptococcus pneumoniae and vancomycin-resistant enterococci) and Gram-negative bacilli (GNB, including carbapenem-resistant [CR] Enterobacterales, CR-Pseudomonas aeruginosa and XDR/CR-Acinetobacter baumannii complex) can be quite challenging for physicians with respect to treatment decisions. Apart from complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections (cUTIs, cIAIs), bloodstream infections and pneumonia, these difficult-to-treat bacteria also cause infections at miscellaneous sites (bones, joints, native/prosthetic valves and skin structures, etc.). Antibiotics like dalbavancin, oritavancin, telavancin and daptomycin are currently approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structural infections (ABSSSIs) caused by GPC. Additionally, ceftaroline, linezolid and tigecycline have been formally approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and ABSSSI. Cefiderocol and meropenem-vaborbactam are currently approved for the treatment of cUTIs caused by XDR-GNB. The spectra of ceftazidime-avibactam and imipenem/cilastatin-relebactam are broader than that of ceftolozane-tazobactam, but these three antibiotics are currently approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia, cIAIs and cUTIs caused by MDR-GNB. Clinical investigations of other novel antibiotics (including cefepime-zidebactam, aztreonam-avibactam and sulbactam-durlobactam) for the treatment of various infections are ongoing. Nevertheless, evidence for adequate antibiotic regimens against osteomyelitis, arthritis and infective endocarditis due to several GPC and MDR-GNB is still mostly lacking. A comprehensive review of PubMed publications was undertaken and the formal indications and off-label use of important conventional and novel antibiotics against MDR/XDR-GPC and GNB isolates cultured from miscellaneous sites are presented in this paper.

Incidence and risk factors for mortality in patients treated with combined ceftaroline for Gram-positive infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Ceftaroline is a fifth-generation cephalosporin and represents an alternative in the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE). The main objective of this study was to describe the incidence of in-hospital and 42-day mortality in patients with IE treated with ceftaroline.

METHODS

An observational retrospective study included adult patients with IE admitted during a 3.5-year period (January 2018-June 2021) and treated with ceftaroline in a single center. All cases were definite or possible IE according to the modified Duke criteria.

RESULTS

Seventy cases were analyzed. The mean age was 67.35 ± 16.62 (16-89) and 39 (55.7%) were males. The mean number of days of treatment with ceftaroline was 21.26 ± 16.17 (1-75). Overall mortality at 42 days was 30%, 20.7% in the first line, and 36.6% in rescue therapy. Predictors of 42 days-mortality were increased Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (OR of 1.7 per 1 point increment, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, P 0.001), presence of methicillin-resistance (OR 6.8, 95% CI 1.3-36.8, P 0.026) and evidence of septic shock (OR 8.6 95% CI 1.7-44.2, P 0.01). Predictors of 42 days of therapeutic failure were the increase in the CCI (OR of 1.6 per 1 point increment, 95% CI 1.3-2.1, P 0.000) and septic shock (OR 4.5 95% CI 1.1-18 P 0.036). Adverse effects were described in 6/70 (8.6%) of the patients, precipitating in 4/70 (5.7%) the definitive withdrawal of the antibiotic.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of in-hospital and 42 day-mortality of IE patients treated with ceftaroline remains similar to literature data. Increased CCI, septic shock, and methicillin resistance are associated with poor prognosis.

Infective Endocarditis: New Challenges in a Classic Disease

Infective endocarditis is a relatively rare, but deadly infection, with an overall mortality of around 20% in most series. Clinical manifestations have evolved in response to significant epidemiological shifts in industrialized nations, with a move toward a nosocomial or health-care-related pattern, in older patients, with more episodes associated with prostheses and/or intravascular electronic devices and a predominance of staphylococcal and enterococcal etiology.Diagnosis is often challenging and is based on the conjunction of clinical, microbiological, and imaging information, with notable progress in recent years in the accuracy of echocardiographic data, coupled with the recent emergence of other useful imaging techniques such as cardiac computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tools, particularly ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission/CT.The choice of an appropriate treatment for each specific case is complex, both in terms of the selection of the appropriate agent and doses and durations of therapy as well as the possibility of using combined bactericidal antibiotic regimens in the initial phase and finalizing treatment at home in patients with good evolution with outpatient oral or parenteral antimicrobial therapies programs. A relevant proportion of patients will also require valve surgery during the active phase of treatment, the timing of which is extremely difficult to define. For all the above, the management of infective endocarditis requires a close collaboration of multidisciplinary endocarditis teams.

Novel Cephalosporins in Septic Subjects and Severe Infections: Present Findings and Future Perspective

In past decade, cephalosporins have developed significantly, and data regarding novel cephalosporins (i.e., ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, and cefiderocol) within septic and bacteremic subjects are rising. These compounds generally offer very promising in vitro microbiological susceptibility, although the variability among gram-negative and -positive strains of different cohorts is noticed in the literature. We require further pharmacological data to measure the best dose in order to prevent sub-therapeutic drug levels in critically ill patients. These new compounds in theory are the sparing solution in the Enterobacteriales infection group for different antimicrobial classes such as aminoglycosides notably within endovascular and GNB-bacteremias, as well as colistin and carbapenem-sparing strategies, favoring good safety profile molecules. Moreover, new cephalosporins are the basis for the actual indications to open up new and exciting prospects for serious infections in the future. In future, patients will be addressed with the desirable approach to sepsis and serious infections in terms of their clinical situation, inherent features of the host, the sensitivity profile, and local epidemiology, for which evidence of the use of new cephalosporin in the treatment of severe infections will fill the remaining gaps.

New-Generation Antibiotics for Treatment of Gram-Positive Infections: A Review with Focus on Endocarditis and Osteomyelitis

Infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and osteosynthesis-associated infections are mostly caused by Gram-positive bacteria. They are often difficult to treat and are associated with a poor prognosis. In the past 20 years, nine antibiotic drugs with predominant activity against Gram-positive bacteria have been introduced and approved by the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency: ceftaroline, daptomycin, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, linezolid, tedizolid, delafloxacin, and omadacycline. This narrative review aims to provide an overview on these antibiotics with a special focus on their use in infective endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and osteosynthesis-associated infections. Although some of these approved antibiotics are promising, they should not be used as first- or second-line therapy, awaiting more clinical data.

β-Lactams against the Fortress of the Gram-Positive Staphylococcus aureus Bacterium

The biological diversity of the unicellular bacteria-whether assessed by shape, food, metabolism, or ecological niche-surely rivals (if not exceeds) that of the multicellular eukaryotes. The relationship between bacteria whose ecological niche is the eukaryote, and the eukaryote, is often symbiosis or stasis. Some bacteria, however, seek advantage in this relationship. One of the most successful-to the disadvantage of the eukaryote-is the small (less than 1 μm diameter) and nearly spherical Staphylococcus aureus bacterium. For decades, successful clinical control of its infection has been accomplished using β-lactam antibiotics such as the penicillins and the cephalosporins. Over these same decades S. aureus has perfected resistance mechanisms against these antibiotics, which are then countered by new generations of β-lactam structure. This review addresses the current breadth of biochemical and microbiological efforts to preserve the future of the β-lactam antibiotics through a better understanding of how S. aureus protects the enzyme targets of the β-lactams, the penicillin-binding proteins. The penicillin-binding proteins are essential enzyme catalysts for the biosynthesis of the cell wall, and understanding how this cell wall is integrated into the protective cell envelope of the bacterium may identify new antibacterials and new adjuvants that preserve the efficacy of the β-lactams.

Current Challenges in the Management of Infective Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis is a relatively rare, but deadly cause of sepsis, with an overall mortality ranging from 20 to 25% in most series. Although the classic clinical classification into syndromes of acute or subacute endocarditis have not completely lost their usefulness, current clinical forms have changed according to the profound epidemiological changes observed in developed countries. In this review, we aim to address the changing epidemiology of endocarditis, several recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of endocarditis and endocarditis-triggered sepsis, new useful diagnostic tools as well as current concepts in the medical and surgical management of this disease. Given its complexity, the management of infective endocarditis requires the close collaboration of multidisciplinary endocarditis teams that must decide on the diagnostic approach; the appropriate initial treatment in the critical phase; the detection of patients needing surgery and the timing of this intervention; and finally the accurate selection of patients for out-of-hospital treatment, either at home hospitalization or with oral antibiotic treatment.

Ceftaroline activity against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from patients with infective endocarditis, worldwide (2010-2019)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the antimicrobial activity of ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from patients with infective endocarditis (IE).

METHODS

23,833 S. aureus isolates were collected consecutively from patients with bloodstream infections (BSI) from 2010 to 2019, via the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, including 396 isolates from patients with a diagnosis of IE. Isolates were collected from 340 medical centers worldwide and susceptibility tested by reference broth microdilution in a monitoring laboratory.

RESULTS

The oxacillin resistance (MRSA) rate was 29.0% among IE isolates, and was higher in North America (40.3%) than in Europe (25.4%) or the Latin America/Asia-Pacific region (LATAM-APAC; 18.6%). Ceftaroline was active against 95.2% of IE isolates (MIC50/90, 0.25/1 mg/L), with ceftaroline susceptibility higher in North America (99.2%) and LATAM-APAC (98.3%) than in Europe (92.0%). Among MRSA isolates from IE (n = 115; MIC50/90, 1/2 mg/L), ceftaroline susceptibility was 98.0% in North America, 90.9% in LATAM-APAC, and 68.5% in Europe. Among BSI isolates, MRSA rates were 43.6% in North America and 25.6% in Europe, while ceftaroline susceptibility rates were 98.1% in North America and 95.4% in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftaroline demonstrated potent in vitro activity against a large collection of S. aureus isolates recovered from patients with BSI, including IE.

In vitro activity of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole against clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria from infective endocarditis: are these drugs potential options for the initial management of this disease?

The in vitro activity of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole was assessed against 77 Gram-positive bacterial isolates recovered from patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis (IE). Our data confirm that these drugs are highly in vitro active against the most common agents of IE including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci, and Streptococcus spp., with no significant differences between them. Also, ceftaroline and ceftobiprole have demonstrated a good activity against Enterococcus faecalis (MIC90 0.75 μg/mL and 0.5 μg/mL, respectively). The spectrum of these drugs together with the in vitro and in vivo data on them related with IE published in the scientific literature places them as potential options for the initial management of this disease.

Multicenter Cohort of Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Receiving Daptomycin Plus Ceftaroline Compared With Other MRSA Treatments

Background

Daptomycin and ceftaroline (DAP-CPT) have been used for persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (MRSAB), but have rarely been compared with other therapies. This study provides an exploratory analysis of patients placed on DAP-CPT vs standard of care (SOC) for MRSAB.

Methods

This is a retrospective, matched cohort study MRSAB patients at 4 hospitals in the United States. Patients receiving DAP-CPT for ≥72 hours at any point in therapy were matched 2:1 when possible, 1:1 otherwise, to SOC, first by infection source, then age and renal function. SOC was empiric treatment with vancomycin or daptomycin and any subsequent combination antibiotic(s), except for DAP-CPT.

Results

Fifty-eight patients received DAP-CPT with 113 matched SOC. Ninety-six percent of SOC received vancomycin, and 56% (63/113) escalated therapy at least once in the treatment course. Twenty-four patients received DAP-CPT within 72 hours of index culture; 2 (8.3%) died within 30 days vs 14.2% (16/113) with SOC (P > .05). Subgroup analysis identified numerically lower mortality in DAP-CPT patients with a Charlson comorbidity index ≥3, endovascular source, and receipt of DAP-CPT within 72 hours of index culture. The median MRSAB duration was 9.3 vs 4.8 days for DAP-CPT and SOC, respectively. DAP-CPT was initiated on day 6 on average; after receipt of DAP-CPT, MRSAB duration was 3.3 days.

Conclusions

DAP-CPT treatment is often delayed in MRSAB. Combination therapy may be more beneficial if initiated earlier, particularly in patients at higher risk for mortality. Blinded, randomized, prospective studies are needed to eliminate selection bias inherent in retrospective analyses when examining DAP-CPT vs SOC.

Off-label use of ceftaroline fosamil: A systematic review

Ceftaroline fosamil is a fifth-generation cephalosporin with anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) activity. It has been approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of adults and children with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). However, ceftaroline fosamil has a broad spectrum of activity, and a good safety and tolerability profile, so is frequently used off-label. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the safety and efficacy of off-label use of ceftaroline. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases (2010-2018) were searched using as the main term ceftaroline fosamil and its synonyms in combination with names of infectious diseases of interest. A total of 21 studies with 1901 patients were included: the most common off-label indications for ceftaroline use were bacteremia (n=595), endocarditis (n=171), osteoarticular infections (n=368), hospital-acquired pneumonia (n=115) and meningitis (n=23). The most common reasons for off-label use were persistent or recurrent infection after standard treatment or non-susceptibility to vancomycin and daptomycin. Clinical success was evaluated in 933 patients, and 724 (77%) of these reached this positive outcome. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was reported in 11 studies. In 83 (9%) cases there were AEs related to the use of ceftaroline; the most common reported AEs were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rash and neutropenia. The review results show that ceftaroline may be used in clinical settings other than those currently approved; however, the use of ceftaroline in these contexts deserves further investigation.

Emerging antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia

Introduction: Community-acquired pneumonia is the most common infection leading to hospitalization and death in all age groups, especially in elderly populations. Increasing antibiotic resistance among the common bacterial pathogens associated with community-acquired pneumonia, especially Streptococcus pneumoniae and staphylococci, has made its empirical treatment increasingly problematic, highlighting the need for effective antibiotic therapy.Areas covered: We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language reports of phase III clinical trials conducted between 2000 and 2019 concerning the antibiotic treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. We provide a summary of the latest approved drugs for this indication and highlight emerging drugs with a potential indication.Expert opinion: Ceftaroline (a new cephalosporine) and omadacycline (a cycline alternative), either parenterally or orally, are the only two new antibiotics to have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in the last five years. Among the antimicrobials in development, Lefamulin (the first pleuromutilin), is currently in phase III development. Among the known antibiotic classes, solithromycin (a macrolide), nemonoxacin (a quinolone), and delafloxacin and zabofloxacin (both fluoroquinolones), have been studied in phase II and III in clinical trials. The availability of these new antibiotics may offer opportunities to improve the empirical treatment for community-acquired pneumonia.

Cephalosporins: A Focus on Side Chains and β-Lactam Cross-Reactivity

Cephalosporins are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes due to their wide clinical utility and general tolerability, with approximately 1-3% of the population reporting a cephalosporin allergy. However, clinicians may avoid the use of cephalosporins in patients with reported penicillin allergies despite the low potential for cross-reactivity. The misdiagnosis of β-lactam allergies and misunderstanding of cross-reactivity among β-lactams, including within the cephalosporin class, often leads to use of broader spectrum antibiotics with poor safety and efficacy profiles and represents a serious obstacle for antimicrobial stewardship. Risk factors for cephalosporin allergies are broad and include female sex, advanced age, and a history of another antibiotic or penicillin allergy; however, cephalosporins are readily tolerated even among individuals with true immediate-type allergies to penicillins. Cephalosporin cross-reactivity potential is related to the structural R1 side chain, and clinicians should be cognizant of R1 side chain similarities when prescribing alternate β-lactams in allergic individuals or when new cephalosporins are brought to market. Clinicians should consider the low likelihood of true cephalosporin allergy when clinically indicated. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the role of cephalosporins in clinical practice, and to highlight the incidence of, risk factors for, and cross-reactivity of cephalosporins with other antibiotics.

A Mini-Review on Ceftaroline in Bacteremia Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infections

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to describe the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline in the non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in both pediatric and adult populations.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic overview was conducted by searching PubMed, Medline, and The Cochrane Library up to January 2019.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language clinical trials and case reports related to the efficacy of ceftaroline in new, not-yet-approved FDA indications in MRSA infections in pediatric or adult populations.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the case of MRSA bacteremia (MRSAB) infections, three different randomized studies in pediatric patients showed effectiveness of ceftaroline. When used in the case of adult populations with MRSA bacteremia, a small trial of 16 patients showed 50% clinical success in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections versus 63% clinical success in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Another case series of six refractory case reports showed 50% clinical success of ceftaroline in patients with MRSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are few case reports and limited data to date, ceftaroline fosamil should continue to be studied as an alternative therapy in MRSA infections in both pediatric and adult populations. Clinical success rates of ceftaroline were, in most cases, considered high when treating patients with MRSA infection. More clinical trials need to be studied. In the specific case of MRSA bacteremia, the treatment options remain few and ceftaroline should be extensively studied for the salvage treatment of MRSAB.