In Vitro activity of ceftobiprole against 20,255 recent clinical bacterial isolates in Canada (CANWARD 2015-2023)

BACKGROUND

Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In this study, we determined the in vitro activities of ceftobiprole and comparator agents against 20,225 common Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria isolated from patients who presented for care at 16 tertiary-care hospitals across Canada between 2015 and 2023.

METHODS

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference M07 broth microdilution method. MICs were interpreted using CLSI M100 breakpoints where available. As CLSI does not publish MIC breakpoints for ceftobiprole, ceftobiprole MICs were interpreted using United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), and Health Canada breakpoints.

RESULTS

Ceftobiprole inhibited 100 % of MRSA at ≤ 4 μg/ml; 100 % of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and 99.8% of MRSA at ≤ 2 μg/ml; 100 % of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes at ≤ 0.5 μg/ml; and 97.9 % of ESBL-negative Escherichia coli, 97.4 % of ESBL-negative Klebsiella pneumoniae, 97.8 % of Proteus mirabilis, 89.3 % of Serratia marcescens, 78.2 % of Enterobacter cloacae, 55.7 % of Klebsiella oxytoca at ≤ 0.25 μg/ml. Ceftobiprole was inactive against ESBL-positive E. coli and ESBL-positive K. pneumoniae.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftobiprole demonstrated potent in vitro activity against MRSA, MSSA, S. pneumoniae, S. pyogenes, ESBL-negative E. coli and K. pneumoniae, and P. mirabilis isolated from clinical specimens of patients seeking care at Canadian tertiary-care hospitals.

Ceftobiprole Medocaril: A New Fifth-Generation Cephalosporin

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intravenous ceftobiprole in the treatment of bloodstream infections, acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: ceftobiprole, ceftobiprole medocaril, ceftobiprole medocaril sodium, Zevtera, and BAL5788.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles published in English between January 1985 and August 15, 2024, related to pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and clinical trials were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ceftobiprole has shown similar efficacy to comparator antibiotics in CAP, ABSSSIs, and bloodstream infections. Overall treatment success in patients with bacteremia was 69.8% and 68.7%; 91.3% and 88.1% with ABSSSIs and 86.6% and 87.4% with CAP in ceftobiprole and comparator groups, respectively. Finally, in the management of HAP and VAP, ceftobiprole was inferior in the VAP population. Ceftobiprole had a favorable safety profile with gastrointestinal adverse effects occurring more frequently than comparators.Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice in Comparison to Existing Drugs:Clinicians have limited options to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Ceftobiprole has demonstrated efficacy against causative pathogens in specific infections including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB), ABSSSI, and CAP and may be considered a viable alternative. However, ceftobiprole's impact on HAP, VAP, and febrile neutropenia needs to be further delineated.

CONCLUSION

Ceftobiprole's broad-spectrum activity makes it a viable option for treating patients hospitalized with CAP, ABSSSI, and SAB. Further studies are needed in severely ill HAP or VAP, febrile neutropenia, and pediatric patients.

Ceftobiprole: A therapeutic update

PURPOSE

The purpose of this therapy update is to highlight new clinical studies comparing ceftobiprole to current therapies and provide evidence for its suggested role in therapeutic management of selected infectious diseases.

SUMMARY

Antimicrobial resistance continues to be a global health problem, and newer targeted antimicrobials are necessary to combat increasing rates of problematic infections. More specifically, targeted antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are needed. Ceftobiprole has been marketed internationally for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections, community-acquired pneumonia, and hospital-acquired pneumonia. While Food and Drug Administration approval was previously pursued for its use in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in the US, the Food and Drug Administration issued a complete response letter determining that study data were unreliable and recommended completion of additional studies. In April 2024, ceftobiprole was granted approval for 3 indications in the US based on updated clinical study data. Ceftobiprole is the second fifth-generation cephalosporin to be developed and approved for clinical use.

CONCLUSION

Ceftobiprole has been shown to be safe and effective in treating specific infectious diseases such as bloodstream infections, acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Its use should be considered when targeting infections caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus where other therapeutic options may be limited. However, additional real-world data on the efficacy of ceftobiprole should be continually monitored as experience in the US increases.

Ceftobiprole medocaril for skin and skin-structure infections

INTRODUCTION

On 3 April 2024, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ceftobiprole medocaril sodium (Zevtera) for injection for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) as well as patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections and patients 3 months to less than 18 years old with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

AREAS COVERED

Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin that exerts antibacterial activity by binding to penicillin-binding proteins and inhibiting transpeptidases and has demonstrated broad antimicrobial activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This manuscript involves a literature review of PubMed from 1 February 2024 through 8 January 2025.

EXPERT OPINION

Ceftobiprole has demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating ABSSSI in a randomized, controlled, double-blind, multinational trial. The pharmacokinetics of this drug, coupled with its favorable safety profile, suggest ceftobiprole will be an important addition to the antimicrobial armamentarium. In the future, ceftobiprole may be used alone or in combination to treat antibiotic-resistant infections, which serve as an expanding threat to patients with and without immune impairment.

What is the most effective antibiotic monotherapy for severe Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Severe infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in hospitalized and immunocompromised patients. Determining the optimal definitive monotherapy for these infections is critical. The main objective was to compile the evidence of subgroups of patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection from randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating different definite antipseudomonal monotherapies for severe P. aeruginosa infection.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that assessed monotherapy with an antipseudomonal drug versus another antipseudomonal for definite treatment, and reported on the subgroup of patients with P. aeruginosa infection. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, LILACS and the reference lists of included trials. Eligibility criteria included RCTs enrolling hospitalized adults (≥18 years) with microbiologically confirmed severe P. aeruginosa infections. Studies were excluded if they included >20% of patients receiving combination therapy or if patients had resistant P. aeruginosa strains at recruitment. Antipseudomonal drugs evaluated included cephalosporins, carbapenems, penicillins, quinolones and aztreonam. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Results were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models as appropriate. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs were calculated. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed when data were available.

RESULTS

A total of 76 RCTs and 1681 patients with pseudomonal infection were included. Due to the low number of studies which reported our outcomes of interest, all subgroup analyses were underpowered. No difference in all-cause mortality was found for any direct antibiotic comparison. Higher clinical failure rates of carbapenems versus piperacillin-tazobactam were observed for pneumonia in two RCTs (RR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.29-5.03; I2 = 0%, n = 2), and higher microbiological failure rates with carbapenems versus other comparators (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51; I2 = 0%, n = 23). Patients treated with imipenem were more likely to develop resistance to the study drug versus comparators (RR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.61-3.38; I2 = 0%, n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of definite antipseudomonal monotherapy for P. aeruginosa infection, we found no evidence of clinical benefit differences among direct antibiotic comparisons, but all subgroup analyses were underpowered to detect significant differences.

The use of Ceftobiprole in treatment pathways in Spain: an expert panel review

BACKGROUND

Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation β-lactam approved in Spain solely for the treatment of community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the use of ceftobiprole in the Spanish healthcare setting, and to review and define its positioning for treatment of infections, both in hospital and outpatient settings.

METHODS

In November 2023, an in-person meeting was held, with ten healthcare professionals with expertise in infectious diseases and/or hospital-at-home settings in attendance.

RESULTS

The experts discussed the use of ceftobiprole in treating CAP and HAP, and in off-label indications where data exist to support this. In clinical trials and real-world studies, ceftobiprole has shown comparable efficacy and safety to other clinically approved antimicrobials for the treatment of skin and soft tissue, bone and joint, bacteraemia and endocarditis infections. The panel considered the use of ceftobiprole in hospital at home/outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy settings for all indications discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts concluded that ceftobiprole may be a suitable alternative therapy in complex infections caused by Gram-positive and select Gram-negative bacteria. They agreed that use in CAP and HAP could be expanded and that there was potential for use in all unlicensed indications discussed. The panel noted the benefits of its broad spectrum in polymicrobial infections, whilst the ability to administer the drug by continuous perfusion could enable its use in outpatient settings. Further research could highlight its suitability across additional conditions and populations.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of systemic antibiotics for diabetes-related foot infections

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes-related foot infections (DFIs) are prevalent in patients with diabetes mellitus, often leading to severe complications, including amputations. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of systemic antibiotics in DFI treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, Cochrane databases, and Embase for randomized controlled trials up to August 4, 2024, evaluating the clinical efficacy of systemic antibiotics for DFIs. Primary outcomes were clinical efficacy and safety, comparing different antibiotic classes to penicillins. Subgroup analysis was based on DFI severity.

RESULTS

Of 24 studies, 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Linezolid showed a potential efficacy advantage over penicillins for DFIs but had more adverse effects. Clinical efficacy and safety were comparable across carbapenems and quinolones versus penicillins. Ertapenem showed no significant difference from piperacillin/tazobactam in treating moderate or severe DFIs.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while linezolid may offer a potential efficacy advantage over penicillins in treating DFIs, it is associated with a higher risk of drug-related adverse effects. Penicillins demonstrate comparable clinical efficacy and safety to carbapenems and fluoroquinolones for DFI management. For moderate to severe DFIs, piperacillin/tazobactam and ertapenem are viable options, though treatment should be guided by local antimicrobial resistance patterns.

Ceftobiprole mono-therapy versus combination or non-combination regimen of standard antibiotics for the treatment of complicated infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Various bacteria produce complicated infections that are difficult to treat worldwide. Ceftobiprole is effective against resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.

METHODS

This review assessed effectiveness and safety of ceftobiprole monotherapy for severe infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical cure, microbiological cure, and safety of ceftobiprole alone to a combination or non-combination antibiotic regimen was conducted. Until December 20, 2022, we searched a major databases.

RESULTS

This study includes 4168 patients from six trials. Ceftobiprole and comparator-received patients had similar clinical responses for all patient population. Also, the eradication rate of all organisms and specific pathogenic bacteria in microbiologically examined patients was comparable between the groups. Ceftobiprole induced more gastrointestinal side events than comparable drugs, mostly nausea [OR 1.91 (1.26-2.90), p=<0.01]. While skin-related adverse events were significantly associated with comparator antibiotics [6 trials, 4062 patients; OR 0.77 (0.60-0.99), p=0.03].

CONCLUSION

Ceftobiprole monotherapy is effective and safe for severe infections caused by Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteria.

Microbiological profile of diabetic foot infections in China and worldwide: a 20-year systematic review

Introduction

Pathogens causing diabetic foot infections (DFIs) vary by region globally; however, knowledge of the causative organism is essential for effective empirical treatment. We aimed to determine the incidence and antibiotic susceptibility of DFI pathogens worldwide, focusing on Asia and China.

Methods

Through a comprehensive literature search, we identified published studies on organisms isolated from DFI wounds from January 2000 to December 2020.

Results

Based on our inclusion criteria, we analyzed 245 studies that cumulatively reported 38,744 patients and 41,427 isolated microorganisms. DFI pathogens varied according to time and region. Over time, the incidence of Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria have decreased and increased, respectively. America and Asia have the highest (62.74%) and lowest (44.82%) incidence of Gram-negative bacteria, respectively. Africa has the highest incidence (26.90%) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Asia has the highest incidence (49.36%) of Gram-negative aerobic bacteria with species infection rates as follows: Escherichia coli, 10.77%; Enterobacter spp., 3.95%; and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 11.08%, with higher local rates in China and Southeast Asia. Linezolid, vancomycin, and teicoplanin were the most active agents against Gram-positive aerobes, while imipenem and cefoperazone-sulbactam were the most active agents against Gram-negative aerobes.

Discussion

This systematic review showed that over 20 years, the pathogens causing DFIs varied considerably over time and region. This data may inform local clinical guidelines on empirical antibiotic therapy for DFI in China and globally. Regular large-scale epidemiological studies are necessary to identify trends in DFI pathogenic bacteria.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447645.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Treatment of MRSA Infection: Where are We?

Staphylococcus aureus is a leading cause of septicemia, endocarditis, pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, bone and joint infections, and hospital-acquired infections. In particular, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and continues to be a major public health problem. The emergence of multidrug-resistant MRSA strains along with the wide consumption of antibiotics has made anti-MRSA treatment a huge challenge. Novel treatment strategies (e.g., novel antimicrobials and new administrations) against MRSA are urgently needed. In the past decade, pharmaceutical companies have invested more in the research and development (R&D) of new antimicrobials and strategies, spurred by favorable policies. All research articles were collected from authentic online databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, by using different combinations of keywords, including 'anti-MRSA', 'antibiotic', 'antimicrobial', 'clinical trial', 'clinical phase', clinical studies', and 'pipeline'. The information extracted from articles was compared to information provided on the drug manufacturer's website and Clinical Trials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) to confirm the latest development phase of anti-MRSA agents. The present review focuses on the current development status of new anti-MRSA strategies concerning chemistry, pharmacological target(s), indications, route of administration, efficacy and safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics, and aims to discuss the challenges and opportunities in developing drugs for anti-MRSA infections.

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.

Detection, management, and prevention of diabetes-related foot disease in the Australian context

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a widely feared complication among people who live with diabetes. In Australia and globally, rates of disability, cardio-vascular disease, lower extremity amputation, and mortality are significantly increased in patients with DFD. In order to understand and prevent these outcomes, we analyse the common pathogenetic processes of neuropathy, arterial disease, and infection. The review then summarises important management considerations through the interdisciplinary lens. Using Australian and international guidelines, we offer a stepwise, evidence-based practical approach to the care of patients with DFD.

What’s old is new again: Insights into diabetic foot microbiome

Diabetes is a chronic disease that is considered one of the most stubborn global health problems that continues to defy the efforts of scientists and physicians. The prevalence of diabetes in the global population continues to grow to alarming levels year after year, causing an increase in the incidence of diabetes complications and health care costs all over the world. One major complication of diabetes is the high susceptibility to infections especially in the lower limbs due to the immunocompromised state of diabetic patients, which is considered a definitive factor in all cases. Diabetic foot infections continue to be one of the most common infections in diabetic patients that are associated with a high risk of serious complications such as bone infection, limb amputations, and life-threatening systemic infections. In this review, we discussed the circumstances associated with the high risk of infection in diabetic patients as well as some of the most commonly isolated pathogens from diabetic foot infections and the related virulence behavior. In addition, we shed light on the different treatment strategies that aim at eradicating the infection.

Systemic Antimicrobial Therapy for Diabetic Foot Infections: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a common complication of diabetes; however, there is clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal antimicrobial selection. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the recent systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of systemic (parenteral or oral) antimicrobials for DFI. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases and the PROSPERO register were searched from January 2015 to January 2023. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses on systemic antimicrobials for DFI, with outcomes of clinical infection resolution or complications, were included. Of the 413 records identified, 6 systematic reviews of 29 individual studies were included. Heterogeneity of individual studies precluded meta-analysis, except for ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam (RR 1.07, 95% CI [0.96-1.19]) and fluoroquinolones versus piperacillin-tazobactam (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.89-1.20]) in one review. The application of the AMSTAR-2 tool determined two reviews to be of high quality. There was no statistical difference in the clinical resolution of infections for 24 different antimicrobial regimens (penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, metronidazole, clindamycin, linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline). However, tigecycline did not meet non-inferiority against ertapenem ± vancomycin (absolute difference -5.5%, 95% CI [-11.0-0.1]) and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse drug events. There is minimal systematic review evidence to suggest one regimen is superior to another for DFI.

The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Related Adverse Events in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Narrative Review of the Literature

The use of antibiotics for the treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) over an extended period of time has been shown to be associated with adverse events (AEs), whereas interactions with concomitant patient medications must also be considered. The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the most frequent and most severe AEs reported in prospective trials and observational studies at the global level in DFI. Gastrointestinal intolerances were the most frequent AEs, from 5% to 22% among all therapies; this was more common when prolonged antibiotic administration was combined with oral beta-lactam or clindamycin or a higher dose of tetracyclines. The proportion of symptomatic colitis due to Clostridium difficile was variable depending on the antibiotic used (0.5% to 8%). Noteworthy serious AEs included hepatotoxicity due to beta-lactams (5% to 17%) or quinolones (3%); cytopenia's related to linezolid (5%) and beta-lactams (6%); nausea under rifampicin, and renal failure under cotrimoxazole. Skin rash was found to rarely occur and was commonly associated with the use of penicillins or cotrimoxazole. AEs from prolonged antibiotic use in patients with DFI are costly in terms of longer hospitalization or additional monitoring care and can trigger additional investigations. The best way to prevent AEs is to keep the duration of antibiotic treatment short and with the lowest dose clinically necessary.

New Antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus Infection: An Update from the World Association of Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders (WAidid) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA)

Staphylococcus aureus is an extremely virulent pathogen that is capable of quickly evolving and developing antibiotic resistance. To overcome this problem, new antibiotics have been developed. Some of these have been licenced for use in clinical practice, mainly for the treatment of adults with acute skin and soft tissue infections, in addition to both community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and nosocomial pneumonia (hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia). In this paper, the main characteristics and clinical use of new licenced anti-staphylococcal drugs have been discussed. In vitro studies have demonstrated that some new anti-staphylococcal antibiotics have better antimicrobial activity and, at least in certain cases, more favourable pharmacokinetic properties and higher safety and tolerability than the presently available anti-staphylococcal drugs. This suggests that they may have a potential use in reducing the risk of failure of S. aureus therapy. However, an in-depth analysis of microbiological and clinical studies carried out with these new drugs seems to indicate that further studies need to be conducted before the problem of resistance of S. aureus to the antibiotics available today can be completely solved. Considering the overall available research, the drugs that are active against S. aureus appear to present a great therapeutic opportunity for overcoming resistance to traditional therapy. There are advantages in the pharmacokinetic characteristics of some of these drugs and they have the potential to reduce hospital stays and economic costs associated with their use.

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.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of ceftobiprole in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

INTRODUCTION

Due to its bacteriological spectrum and efficacy in skin and soft tissue infections, ceftobiprole may be of interest for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannula-related infection. It is unknown whether ceftobiprole pharmacokinetics (PK) are changed by ECMO.

METHODS

A retrospective monocentric cohort study was performed of 35 patients with suspected ECMO-related cannula infections (28 on ECMO, seven after ECMO removal), who received ceftobiprole as empiric treatment and had ceftobiprole blood levels measured at trough, peak and CT50 (50% of the dosing interval). Ceftobiprole blood levels of the 28 patients on ECMO were compared with those of the seven patients without ECMO. Factors associated with low ceftobiprole trough levels were also explored.

RESULTS

Among the 35 patients included, 29 had a confirmed cannula-related infection and 48 pathogens were isolated. Ceftobiprole MIC was determined in 29 of these 48, and 23 (79%) were susceptible to ceftobiprole. Ceftobiprole blood levels (at trough, peak and CT50) were similar in ECMO and non-ECMO patients. Moreover, in patients whose pathogens responsible for infection were susceptible to ceftobiprole, 94% had a ceftobiprole trough level above the MIC. Ceftobiprole blood levels were decreased in patients with acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) and in those with increased renal clearance (defined as creatinine clearance > 130 mL/min), independent of ECMO. No other factor was associated with modification of ceftobiprole PK/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD).

CONCLUSIONS

The ceftobiprole PK/PD was no different in patients during ECMO or after its withdrawal. Factors associated with decreased ceftobiprole blood levels were patients requiring RRT and those with increased renal clearance.

Current and emerging drug treatment strategies to tackle invasive community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection: what are the challenges?

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections represent a leading cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections in some geographical regions. Traditionally, 'old antibiotics' such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines, clindamycin, chloramphenicol,vancomycin, and teicoplanin have been used to treat these infections, but these were often associated with low efficacy and excessive side effects and toxicity, especially nephrotoxicity. Along with the development of new compounds, the last decade has seen substantial improvements in the management of CA-MRSA infections.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the current and emerging drug treatment strategies to tackle invasive CA-MRSA infections. Articles reported in this review were selected from through literature searches using the PubMed database.

EXPERT OPINION

The availability of new drugs showing a potent in vitro activity against CA-MRSA represents a unique opportunity to face the threat of resistance while potentially reducing toxicity. All these compounds represent promising options to enhance our antibiotic armamentarium. However, data regarding the use of these new drugs in real-life studies are limited and their best placement in therapy and in terms of optimization of medical resources and balance of cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

Phage Therapy as an Alternative Treatment Modality for Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections

The production and use of antibiotics increased significantly after the Second World War due to their effectiveness against bacterial infections. However, bacterial resistance also emerged and has now become an important global issue. Those most in need are typically high-risk and include individuals who experience burns and other wounds, as well as those with pulmonary infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter sp, and Staphylococci. With investment to develop new antibiotics waning, finding and developing alternative therapeutic strategies to tackle this issue is imperative. One option remerging in popularity is bacteriophage (phage) therapy. This review focuses on Staphylococcus aureus and how it has developed resistance to antibiotics. It also discusses the potential of phage therapy in this setting and its appropriateness in high-risk people, such as those with cystic fibrosis, where it typically forms a biofilm.

Efficacy and safety of optional parenteral antimicrobial therapy for complicated skin and soft tissue infections: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) carry significant economic burden, as well as morbidity and mortality, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of optional antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline (Via Ovid SP), Embase (Via Ovid SP), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to March 22, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the use of optional antimicrobial therapy for cSSTIs. Citations' screening, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by 2 authors. The primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological treatment success, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 48 trials covering 24,381 patients assessing 20 types of antimicrobial treatment modalities were included. Overall, omadacycline was associated with the highest beneficial effect on clinical and microbiological treatment success and with the largest rank probability based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, avarofloxacin was closely followed. Both had, however, omadacycline was related to moderately safety profiles. Lefamulin ranked as the best option was associated with the lowest risk of severe AEs. Subgroup analysis showed similar results. The quality of primary outcomes was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of omadacycline was associated with higher rates of clinical and microbiological treatment success for the treatment of cSSTIs, with a relative low risk of AEs. Due to the limitations of the included RCTs, high-quality and well-designed RCTs are needed to further confirm the results.

Antibiotics for multidrug-resistant gram-positive bacteria

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a major global threat to public health and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A few therapeutic options for the treatment of multidrug resistant (MDR) gram-positive bacteria, such as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MDR Streptococcus pneumoniae, vancomycin resistant Enterococci, are available.Current Concepts: As a result of comprehensive efforts, a dozen novel antibiotics have been developed and approved for the treatment of MDR gram-positive bacteria in the United States and Europe over the past 15 years. However, only a few antibiotics have been introduced in the Republic of Korea. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the antibiotics that act against MDR gram-positive bacteria as a primary therapeutic option. Particularly, this review focuses on novel antibiotics, including ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, telavancin, dalbavancin, oritavancin, tedizolid, delafloxacin, omadacycline, and lefamulin.Discussion and Conclusion: Novel antibiotics against MDR gram-positive bacteria have not yet been sufficiently studied in various clinical settings, and therefore, the approved indications are limited. However, these antibiotics are expected to play a major role in the treatment of MDR gram-positive bacteria owing to their advantages, including broad anti-bacterial spectrum, rapid bactericidal effect, minimal drug-drug interaction, a favorable safety profile, availability of both intravenous and oral formulations, convenient dosing scheme, and a single dose (or once a week) regimen owing to long half-life. It is crucial to introduce these novel antibiotics in the Republic of Korea for the treatment of patients suffering from MDR bacterial infections.

Diagnosis and management of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria: guideline endorsed by the Italian Society of Infection and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT), the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI) and the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM)

Management of patients with infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for the diagnosis and optimal management of these infections, with a focus on targeted antibiotic therapy. The document was produced by a panel of experts nominated by the five endorsing Italian societies, namely the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM), the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA). Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) questions about microbiological diagnosis, pharmacological strategies and targeted antibiotic therapy were addressed for the following pathogens: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. A systematic review of the literature published from January 2011 to November 2020 was guided by the PICO strategy. As data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were expected to be limited, observational studies were also reviewed. The certainty of evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Recommendations were classified as strong or conditional. Detailed recommendations were formulated for each pathogen. The majority of available RCTs have serious risk of bias, and many observational studies have several limitations, including small sample size, retrospective design and presence of confounders. Thus, some recommendations are based on low or very-low certainty of evidence. Importantly, these recommendations should be continually updated to reflect emerging evidence from clinical studies and real-world experience.

New drugs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Staphylococcus aureus is a pathogen incriminated in skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) becoming the predominant cause and representing a significant burden to the healthcare system. The last updated Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines concerning MRSA infections and SSTIs management were published in 2011 and 2014, respectively. The UK updated guidelines for MRSA infection treatment were published in 2021. Older treatment options may be associated with toxicity and require frequent dosing. There is a paucity of recent reviews on the armamentarium of new agents for MRSA SSTIs treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since 2005, several new antibiotics received a fast-track approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SSTI treatment. These drugs include delafloxacin, omadacycline, tedizolid, ceftaroline, dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin. In this manuscript, we will review the data that led to these new drugs approval and discuss their advantages and disadvantages in MRSA SSTIs management.

SUMMARY

MRSA is a major cause of SSTIs. Several novel therapies covering MRSA were FDA-approved for SSTIs. However, the current IDSA guidelines for MRSA infection and SSTIs as well as the recently published UK guidelines on MRSA treatment only consider these drugs as alternative choices or do not mention them at all.

Current international and national guidelines for managing skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Skin and soft tissue infections account for a significant percentage of both community and nosocomial infections. Several nosological entities are included in this concept. However, there is a very scarce body of doctrine for their treatment based on randomised trials. Therefore, we considered it necessary to review current treatment guidelines to bring new recommendations and improvements to our colleagues. In this review of recent literature, we identified updated guidelines in this area by searching the databases PubMed, evidence-based medicine online, York University reviewers group, Cochrane, MBE-Trip and Sumsearch using the terms: soft tissue infection, therapy, guideline.

RECENT FINDINGS

Developments focus on using new antimicrobials and on the prescription of shorter antibiotic treatment courses.

SUMMARY

With the development of new drugs and the current evidence of their use, there is a need to refine the appropriate drug's decision-making. Drugs with a long half-life, which allows weekly administration, can reduce hospital admission and length of stay with fewer healthcare resources. Shorter courses of antibiotics are recommended. The role of stewardship programmes will continue to expand. The surgical indication and its value are evident in many patients. Therefore, management should rely on a collaborative group with experience in this disease.

Efficacy and safety of delafloxacin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline for the empiric treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Anti-MRSA Cephalosporin versus Vancomycin-Based Treatment for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90–1.23; I² = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40–0.97; I² = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07–1.85; I² = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment.

Potential role of new-generation antibiotics in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available results of primary analyses from high-quality randomized studies of either recently approved or possible future agents for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 2 decades, several novel agents have been approved for the treatment of ABSSSI, that are also active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to already available agents, further molecules are in clinical development that could become available for treating ABSSSI in the forthcoming future.

SUMMARY

The current and future availability of several new-generation antibiotics will allow to modulate therapeutic choices not only on efficacy but also on other relevant factors such as the combination of the drug safety profile and the comorbidities of any given patient, the expected adherence to outpatient therapy, and the possibilities of early discharge or avoiding hospitalization by means of oral formulations, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, or single-dose administration of long-acting intravenous agents. With the advent of new-generation antibiotics, all these factors are becoming increasingly essential for tailoring treatment to individual patients in line with the principles of personalized medicine, and for optimizing the use of healthcare resources.

A post hoc analysis of two Phase III trials showing the efficacy and tolerability of ceftobiprole in East Asian patients

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in patients from East Asia. Materials & methods: A post hoc analysis was conducted of two randomized, double-blind, Phase III studies in patients with community- or hospital-acquired pneumonia. Results: Findings for East Asian patients were consistent with the overall study populations. A trend toward higher microbiological eradication rates and numerically lower rates of all-cause mortality were reported for ceftobiprole versus comparators (all-cause mortality [intent-to-treat]: community-acquired pneumonia, 1.5 vs 2.8%; hospital-acquired pneumonia excluding ventilator-associated pneumonia, 5.9 vs 11.4%). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: This post hoc analysis supports the efficacy and tolerability of ceftobiprole in East Asian patients. ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifiers: NCT00326287, NCT00210964, NCT00229008.

Clinical efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs).Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EBSO, Ovid Medline, ClinicalTrial.gov and Cochrane Library were searched until 25 December 2020. Only randomized controlled trials that compared the treatment efficacy of ceftobiprole with that of other antibiotics for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included in this meta-analysis.Results: The 3 RCTs involving 2291 adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. No significant difference in clinical success, as measured by the TOC, was observed between ceftobiprole and comparators among the intention-to-treat population (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; I² = 0%) and clinical evaluable population (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.76-1.79; I² = 17%). Ceftobiprole was associated with a similar risk of adverse events (AEs) to that of comparators.Conclusions: Ceftobiprole can achieve similar clinical and microbiological responses as alternative antibiotics in patients with ABSSSIs. In addition, ceftobiprole shares a similar safety profile to comparators.

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.

Development of TLC Chromatographic-Densitometric Procedure for Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Ceftobiprole

Currently, there is still a need for broad-spectrum antibiotics. The new cephalosporin antibiotics include, among others, ceftobiprole, a fifth-generation gram-positive cephalosporin, active against Staphylococcus aureus methicillin agonist (MRSA). The main focus of the work was to optimize the conditions of ceftobiprole qualitative determination and to validate the developed procedure according to ICH guidelines. As a result of the optimization process, HPTLC Cellulose chromatographic plates as a stationary phase and a mixture consisting of ethanol:2-propanol: glacial acetic acid: water (4:4:1:3, v/v/v/v) as a mobile phase were chosen. The densitometric detection was carried out at maximum absorbance of ceftobiprole (λ = 232 nm). Next, the validation process of the developed procedure was carried out. The relative standard deviation (RSD) for precision was less than 1.65%, which proves the high compatibility of the results, as well as the LOD = 0.0257 µg/spot and LOQ = 0.0779 µg/spot values, which also confirm the high sensitivity of the procedure. The usefulness of the developed method for the stability studies of ceftobiprole was analyzed. Study was carried out under stress conditions, i.e., acid and alkaline environments, exposure to radiation imitating sunlight and high temperature (40–60 °C). It was found that cefotbiprole is unstable in an alkaline environment and during exposure to UV-VIS radiation. Moreover, the lipophilicity parameter, as a main physicochemical property of the biologically active compound, was determined using experimental and computational methods.

Ceftobiprole Perspective: Current and Potential Future Indications

Ceftobiprole combines an excellent spectrum for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) pathogens, with a low/medium MDR risk, and the β-lactams' safety in frail patients admitted to the hospital in internal medicine wards which may be at high risk of adverse events by anti-MRSA coverage as oxazolidinones or glycopeptides. We aimed to report the available evidence regarding ceftobiprole use in pneumonia and invasive bacterial infections, shedding light on ceftobiprole stewardship. The clinical application and real-life experiences of using ceftobiprole for bloodstream infections, including infective endocarditis, are limited but nevertheless promising. In addition, extended-spectrum ceftobiprole activity, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, has theoretical advantages for use as empirical therapy in bacteremia potentially caused by a broad spectrum of microorganisms, such as catheter-related bacteremia. In the future, the desirable approach to sepsis and severe infections will be administered to patients according to their clinical situation, the intrinsic host characteristics, the susceptibility profile, and local epidemiology, while the "universal antibiotic strategy" will no longer be adequate.

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): updated guidelines from the UK

These evidence-based guidelines are an updated version of those issued in 2008. They have been produced following a review of the published literature (2007-18) pertaining to the treatment of infections caused by MRSA. The guidelines update, where appropriate, previous recommendations, taking into account changes in the UK epidemiology of MRSA, ongoing national surveillance data and the efficacy of novel anti-staphylococcal agents licensed for use in the UK. Emerging therapies that have not been licensed for use in the UK at the time of the review have also been assessed.

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.

No Evidence for Ceftobiprole-Induced Immune Hemolytic Anemia in Three Phase 3 Clinical Trials

Purpose

Drug-induced immune hemolytic anemia (DIIHA) is a rare but serious adverse event associated with a number of drugs, including second- and third-generation cephalosporins. A positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) is a reliable finding in DIIHA, but positive results without evidence of hemolysis can occur, particularly in hospitalized patients. There have been no reports of hemolytic anemia in four previous Phase 3 trials or from post-marketing surveillance of the advanced-generation, broad-spectrum cephalosporin, ceftobiprole. The aim of this analysis was to review the incidence of positive DAT results and any evidence of hemolytic anemia from three recent Phase 3 trials of ceftobiprole.

Patients and Methods

Patients were enrolled in three Phase 3 randomized controlled trials: 94 pediatric patients with pneumonia received ceftobiprole in the BPR-PIP-002 trial; 335 adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections received ceftobiprole in the TARGET trial; and 201 adults with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia have been randomized 1:1 to ceftobiprole or daptomycin ± aztreonam in the ongoing ERADICATE trial. In all three trials, DAT results were obtained at baseline, and follow-up tests were performed either at the test of cure (TOC) visit (BPR-PIP-002), end-of-treatment (EOT) visit (TARGET), or both EOT and post-treatment Day 70 visits (ERADICATE).

Results

In the BPR-PIP-002 trial, five patients (all ceftobiprole treated) had a documented negative DAT result at baseline followed by a positive result at the TOC visit. One patient in the ongoing, blinded ERADICATE trial had a positive DAT result at both baseline and EOT. Results from other laboratory investigations showed no evidence of hemolytic anemia in these patients. No positive DAT results were reported in the TARGET trial.

Conclusion

No evidence of hemolytic anemia associated with ceftobiprole was observed in either adults or children across several indications in this analysis of three large Phase 3 trials.

Ceftobiprole Compared With Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind Trial (TARGET)

BACKGROUND

The development of novel broad-spectrum antibiotics, with efficacy against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, has the potential to enhance treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation intravenous cephalosporin with broad in vitro activity against gram-positive (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and gram-negative pathogens.

METHODS

TARGET was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 noninferiority study that compared ceftobiprole with vancomycin plus aztreonam. The Food and Drug Administration-defined primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response 48-72 hours after treatment initiation in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the European Medicines Agency-defined primary endpoint was investigator-assessed clinical success at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Noninferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in success rates (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin/aztreonam) >-10%. Safety was assessed through adverse event and laboratory data collection.

RESULTS

In total, 679 patients were randomized to ceftobiprole (n = 335) or vancomycin/aztreonam (n = 344). Early clinical success rates were 91.3% and 88.1% in the ceftobiprole and vancomycin/aztreonam groups, respectively, and noninferiority was demonstrated (adjusted difference: 3.3%; 95% CI: -1.2, 7.8). Investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit was similar between the 2 groups, and noninferiority was demonstrated for both the ITT (90.1% vs 89.0%) and clinically evaluable (97.9% vs 95.2%) populations. Both treatment groups displayed similar microbiological success and safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

TARGET demonstrated that ceftobiprole is noninferior to vancomycin/aztreonam in the treatment of ABSSSIs, in terms of early clinical response and investigator-assessed clinical success at the TOC visit.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03137173.

New cephalosporins for the treatment of pneumonia in internal medicine wards

The burden of hospital admission for pneumonia in internal medicine wards may not be underestimated; otherwise, cases of pneumonia are a frequent indication for antimicrobial prescriptions. Community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia are characterized by high healthcare costs, morbidity and non-negligible rates of fatality. The overcoming prevalence of resistant gram-negative and positive bacteria (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin and ceftriaxone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, extended-spectrum β-lactamases and carbapenemases producing Enterobacteriaceae) has made the most of the first-line agents ineffective for treating lower respiratory tract infections. A broad-spectrum of activity, favourable pulmonary penetration, harmlessness and avoiding in some cases a combination therapy, characterise new cephalosporins such as ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftobiprole, ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftaroline. We aimed to summarise the role and place in therapy of new cephalosporins in community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia within the setting of internal medicine wards. The "universal pneumonia antibiotic strategy" is no longer acceptable for treating lung infections. Antimicrobial therapy should be individualized considering local antimicrobial resistance and epidemiology, the stage of the illness and potential host factors predisposing to a high risk for specific pathogens.

Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections: Safety and tolerabilty

This is the fourth chapter of the guideline "Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults - update 2018" in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience. Safety and tolerability of antimicrobial agents will be discussed in this chapter. Toxic, allergic and biological effects can be differentiated on the basis of their pathogenesis. The question of differences in the tolerability of specific antibiotics is of particular importance. However, due to limitations of the available data, it cannot be answered for most agents with the desired accuracy. For an assessment of rare side effects, results from the postmarketing surveillance have to be used.

Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections: Skin and soft tissue infections

This is the ninth chapter of the guideline "Calculated Parenteral Initial Therapy of Adult Bacterial Disorders - Update 2018" in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience. The chapter contains the first German S2k guidelines for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections. They encompass recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of the defined entities erysipelas (caused by beta-hämolytic streptococci), limited superficial cellulitis (S. aureus), severe cellulitis, abscess, complicated skin and soft tissue infections, infections of feet in diabetic patients ("diabetic foot"), necrotizing soft tissue infection and bite injuries.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an overview of basic and clinical research

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the most successful modern pathogens. The same organism that lives as a commensal and is transmitted in both health-care and community settings is also a leading cause of bacteraemia, endocarditis, skin and soft tissue infections, bone and joint infections and hospital-acquired infections. Genetically diverse, the epidemiology of MRSA is primarily characterized by the serial emergence of epidemic strains. Although its incidence has recently declined in some regions, MRSA still poses a formidable clinical threat, with persistently high morbidity and mortality. Successful treatment remains challenging and requires the evaluation of both novel antimicrobials and adjunctive aspects of care, such as infectious disease consultation, echocardiography and source control. In this Review, we provide an overview of basic and clinical MRSA research and summarize the expansive body of literature on the epidemiology, transmission, genetic diversity, evolution, surveillance and treatment of MRSA.

Is coverage of S. aureus necessary in cellulitis/erysipelas? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Empirical treatment of patients with cellulitis/erysipelas usually targets both streptococci and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). However, the recommendation to empirically cover MSSA is weak and based on low-quality evidence.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed and clinical trial registries to assess the role of S. aureus in cellulitis/erysipelas and the need for empirical MSSA coverage.

RESULTS

Combined microbiological and serological data, and response to penicillin monotherapy suggest that streptococci are responsible for the vast majority of cases of cellulitis/erysipelas. However, most cases are non-culturable and the specificity of microbiological and serological studies is questionable based on recent studies using molecular techniques. According to epidemiological data and three randomized controlled trials, empirical coverage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is not recommended for most patients, despite the high prevalence of MRSA in many areas. If MRSA is indeed not an important cause of uncomplicated cellulitis/erysipelas, then the same may apply to MSSA. Based on indirect comparison of data from clinical studies, cure rates with penicillin monotherapy (to which most MSSA are resistant) are comparable to the cure rates reported in many studies using wider-spectrum antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of microbiological studies in identifying the pathogens responsible for cellulitis/erysipelas, treatment needs to be guided by clinical trials. Trials comparing penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy to MSSA-covering regimens are needed to definitively answer whether empirical coverage of MSSA is needed and to identify the subset of patients that can be safely treated with penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy.

Important new therapies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Introduction: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections represent a leading cause of infection-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. There has been a welcome increase in the number of agents available for the treatment of MRSA infection over the last decade and several clinical trials are currently investigating the role of new experimental strategies.Areas covered: The purpose of this manuscript is to review the efficacy and safety of recently approved anti-MRSA molecules as well as some newer agents currently under investigation with a specific focus on the potential role of these drugs in everyday clinical practice.Expert opinion: Many new drugs with an activity against MRSA have been recently approved or are in an advanced stage of development. All these compounds represent promising options to enhance our antibiotic armamentarium. However, data regarding the use of these new compounds in real-life terms are limited and their best placement in therapy and in terms of optimization of medical resources and balance of cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

Ceftobiprole: drug evaluation and place in therapy

Introduction: Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin with a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity, including also methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Ceftobiprole is approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), excluding ventilator-associated pneumonia, in several European and non-European countries. Areas covered: In this narrative review, we discuss the current place in therapy of ceftobiprole, both within and outside approved indications. An inductive MEDLINE/PubMed search of the available literature was conducted. Expert opinion: There are three main reasons which render ceftobiprole an attractive option for the empirical and targeted treatment of CAP and HAP: (i) its broad spectrum of activity; (ii) its activity against MRSA; (iii) its good safety profile. For these indications, ceftobiprole should be employed thoughtfully, in those scenarios in which its intrinsic advantages could be maximized. The use of ceftobiprole outside approved indications could be justified in specific scenarios, such as when other approved alternatives are ineffective, when the risk of toxicity due to other agents is unacceptable, and for salvage therapy. In the near future, ongoing phase 3 studies and further observational experiences could both enlarge the current panel of approved indications and enrich our knowledge on the use of ceftobiprole for off-label indications.

Assessment of Antibiotic Treatment of Cellulitis and Erysipelas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The optimum antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas lacks consensus. The available trial data do not demonstrate the superiority of any agent, and data are limited on the most appropriate route of administration or duration of therapy.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for non-surgically acquired cellulitis.

Data Sources

The following databases were searched to June 28, 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, issue 5), Medline (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Information System (LILACS) (from 1982). In addition, 5 trials databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Further searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were undertaken from June 28, 2016, to December 31, 2018.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing different antibiotics, routes of administration, and treatment durations were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

For data collection and analysis, the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. For dichotomous outcomes, the risk ratio and its 95% CI were calculated. A summary of findings table was created for the primary end points, adopting the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients cured, improved, recovered, or symptom-free or symptom-reduced at the end of treatment, as reported by the trial. The secondary outcome was any adverse event.

Results

A total of 43 studies with a total of 5999 evaluable participants, whose age ranged from 1 month to 96 years, were included. Cellulitis was the primary diagnosis in only 15 studies (35%), and in other studies the median (interquartile range) proportion of patients with cellulitis was 29.7% (22.9%-50.3%). Overall, no evidence was found to support the superiority of any 1 antibiotic over another, and antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus did not add an advantage. Use of intravenous antibiotics over oral antibiotics and treatment duration of longer than 5 days were not supported by evidence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, only low-quality evidence was found for the most appropriate agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment for patients with cellulitis; future trials need to use a standardized set of outcomes, including severity scoring, dosing, and duration of therapy.