Day 4 Clinical Response of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Ceftriaxone for Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

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

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

Ceftaroline fosamil as a potential treatment option for Staphylococcus aureus community-acquired pneumonia in adults

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), is an important aetiological cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Empiric therapy for CAP frequently consists of β-lactam monotherapy or β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy. However, such agents are often ineffective against S. aureus and do not reflect the emergence and increasing prevalence of MRSA in the community setting. Ceftaroline fosamil is a fifth-generation parenteral cephalosporin with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive pathogens - such as S. aureus (including MRSA), Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes - and typical Gram-negative pathogens, including Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The approval of ceftaroline fosamil in the United States and Europe for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe CAP was based on two phase 3 trials (FOCUS 1 and 2), which demonstrated that ceftaroline fosamil was non-inferior to ceftriaxone, a standard empiric treatment for CAP, while exhibiting a comparable safety profile. Although head-to-head trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus comparators against MRSA CAP are lacking, the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in subpopulations of patients not covered by phase 3 trials (e.g. those with MRSA CAP or severe renal impairment) has been demonstrated in the Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) study. As ineffective empiric therapy is associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality and increased costs, ceftaroline fosamil, with its extended spectrum of activity, is an attractive alternative to standard antibiotic CAP regimens.

Efficacy and effectiveness of Ceftaroline Fosamil in patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a relevant clinical and public health issue worldwide frequently associated with infections caused by Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) pathogens. Ceftaroline fosamil is a promising new antibiotics with broad-spectrum bacterial activity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in community-acquired (CAP), hospital-acquired (HAP), healthcare-associated (HCAP) and ventilator-associated (VAP) pneumonia.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out retrieving both experimental and observational studies.

RESULTS

A total of 2364 records was found and 14 manuscripts were finally considered eligible. The pooled efficacy/effectiveness was 81.2% (I2: 1.2%) in all types of pneumonia. The pooled relative risk of clinical cure was 1.1 (I2: 0.0%). The success rate was higher than 70% for infections caused by S. pneumoniae and S. aureus, including MDR pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftaroline fosamil showed a high efficacy/effectiveness in patients with any type of pneumonia with a good safety profile.

Assessment of time to clinical response, a proxy for discharge readiness, among hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who received either ceftaroline fosamil or ceftriaxone in two phase III FOCUS trials

The primary driver of health care costs for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the hospital length of stay (LOS). Unfortunately, hospital LOS comparisons are difficult to make from phase III CAP trials because of their structured designs and prespecified treatment durations. However, an opportunity still exists to draw inferences about potential LOS differences between treatments through the use of surrogates for hospital discharge. The intent of this study was to quantify the time to a clinical response, a proxy for the time to discharge readiness, among hospitalized CAP patients who received either ceftaroline or ceftriaxone in two phase III CAP FOCUS clinical trials. On the basis of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and American Thoracic Society CAP management guidelines and recent FDA guidance documents for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a post hoc adjudication algorithm was constructed a priori to compare the time to a clinical response, a proxy for the time to discharge readiness, between patients who received ceftaroline or ceftriaxone. Overall, 1,116 patients (ceftaroline, n=562; ceftriaxone, n=554) from the pooled FOCUS trials met the selection criteria for this analysis. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that ceftaroline was associated with a shorter time, measured in days, to meeting the clinical response criteria (P=0.03). Of the patients on ceftaroline, 61.0, 76.1, and 83.6% achieved a clinical response by days 3, 4, and 5, compared to 54.3, 69.8, and 79.3% of the ceftriaxone-treated patients. In the Cox regression, ceftaroline was associated with a shorter time to a clinical response (HR, 1.16, P=0.02). The methodology employed here provides a framework to draw comparative effectiveness inferences from phase III CAP efficacy trials. (The FOCUS trials whose data were analyzed in this study have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00621504 and NCT00509106.).

Patient Outcomes on Day 4 of Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy in Non-Intensive Care Unit Hospitalized Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality especially in hospitalized patients. In place of clinical end points traditionally used to evaluate antimicrobial efficacy for its treatment, Food and Drug Administration guidelines now require all registration trials to assess clinical response at day 4. The primary objective of this study was to assess health outcomes (length of stay [LOS] and hospital charges) between responders and nonresponders at this time point.

METHODS

The Premier database was used to identify adult patients from 4 participating hospitals with a principal diagnosis of CABP (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes 481, 482.0, 483.8, 484.3, 484.5, 485, 486, or 487.0) hospitalized between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. Only non-intensive care unit patients with hospital stays exceeding 2 days and receiving intravenous antibiotic agents within 24 hours of admission were included. After institutional review board approvals, a retrospective chart review extracted data for patient demographics, clinical efficacy variables at day 4, LOS, and total hospital charges. Data analysis included multivariable gamma regression models to control for patient demographics and clinical differences between responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

A total of 666 patients met study the criteria. Mean (SD) age was 70.7 (17.9) years, and 42.5% were males. Among these patients, 277 (41.6%) achieved clinical response by day 4 of initial antibiotic therapy. The unadjusted mean (SD) LOS was 6.3 (2.8) days for responders and 7.4 (5.6) days for nonresponders (P = 0.0009). Respective unadjusted total hospital charges were $22,827 (SD, $17,724) and $26,403 ($36,882) (P = 0.0031). Adjusted for demographics and clinical factors, nonresponders compared with responders had an increased LOS of 0.9 days (8.4 vs 7.5 days; P = 0.0008), resulting in associated charges of approximately $2500 ($34,139 vs $36,629; P = 0.0768).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world chart study, less than half of hospitalized patients with CABP achieved clinical response at day 4 of initial intravenous antibiotic therapy. The observed clinical response was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and trended toward lower total hospital charges. These findings corroborate the Food and Drug Administration guidance for assessing antimicrobial therapy at day 4 because responder is associated with improved health outcomes.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: from FOCUS to CAPTURE

Ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline hereafter) is the latest addition to the armamentarium for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). It is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which is a recent FDA indication that centers on individuals with documented bacterial pneumonias that arise in the community setting. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the major findings from the Phase III CAP clinical trials as well as the clinical experience with ceftaroline among patients with CAP in the “Ceftaroline Assessment Program and Teflaro^® Utilization Registry” (CAPTURE). In its two Phase III CAP trials, ceftaroline was compared to ceftriaxone among adults with radiographically confirmed CAP requiring hospitalization who were classified as Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV. Among patients with CAP, clinical success at test of cure was 84.3% vs 77.7% (difference 6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–11.8%) in those treated with ceftaroline and ceftriaxone, respectively, across the two Phase III clinical trials. Among patients with a culture-confirmed CABP, day 4 response rates were numerically higher, albeit non-significant, among patients that received ceftaroline vs. ceftriaxone (69.5% for ceftaroline vs. 59.4% for ceftriaxone, difference 10.1%, 95% CI, −0.6% to 20.6%). The efficacy of ceftaroline is supported by real-world observational data from CAPTURE for patients with both CAP and CABP. In addition, the CAPTURE program afforded an opportunity to assess the outcomes of patients who were excluded or limited in the original Phase III trials in a non-comparative fashion. These underrepresented patient populations with CAP included: patients that received prior antibiotics, patients in the ICU, patients with severe renal dysfunction, and those with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from respiratory or blood culture. As CAPTURE is a retrospective, non-comparator convenience sample registry, all the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

In vitro activity of new cephalosporins vs Streptococcus pneumoniae from the Canadian Bacterial Surveillance Network: 2008-2011

Between 2008 and 2011, 6,895 Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were submitted to the Canadian Bacterial Surveillance Network and underwent in vitro susceptibility testing. Fifteen percent of S. pneumoniae isolates were collected from pediatric patients (0–15 years old), 48.6 % of isolates were collected from adults between 16 and 64 years of age, and 36.1 % from adults aged ≥65 years; age data were not available for 11 patients. Forty-five percent of S. pneumoniae isolates were recovered from sterile specimens, and 55 % of isolates were from nonsterile specimens. Overall, 0.4 % of isolates were resistant to penicillin, 0.4 % to ceftriaxone, 3 % to amoxicillin, 25 % to erythromycin, and 13 % to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; 6.6 % of isolates were multidrug resistant (MDR). Among MDR isolates, resistance rates exceeded 95 % for erythromycin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The MIC₉₀ of cethromycin, ceftaroline, and ceftobiprole against MDR isolates were 0.12, 0.25, and 1 mg/L, respectively. Ceftaroline, the active form of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil, exhibited potent in vitro activity against the tested S. pneumoniae including all 456 multidrug-resistant strains. No ceftaroline-resistant isolates were identified.

Relationship between time to clinical response and outcomes among Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who received ceftriaxone and azithromycin

Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance endorses the use of an early clinical response endpoint as the primary outcome for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) trials. While antibiotics will now be approved for CABP, in practice they will primarily be used to treat patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). More importantly, it is unclear how achievement of the new FDA CABP early response endpoint translates into clinically applicable real-world outcomes for patients with CAP. To address this, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients who received ceftriaxone and azithromycin for CAP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV at an academic medical center. The clinical response was defined as clinical stability for 24 h with improvement in at least one pneumonia symptom and with no symptom worsening. A classification and regression tree (CART) was used to determine the delay in response time, measured in days, associated with the greatest risk of a prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) and adverse outcomes (in-hospital mortality or 30-day CAP-related readmission). A total of 250 patients were included. On average, patients were discharged 2 days following the achievement of a clinical response. In the CART analysis, adverse clinical outcomes were higher among day 5 nonresponders than those who responded by day 5 (22.4% versus 6.9%, P = 0.001). The findings from this study indicate that time to clinical response, as defined by the recent FDA guidance, is a reasonable prognostic indicator of real-world effectiveness outcomes among hospitalized PORT risk class III and IV patients with CAP who received ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

Efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil for bacteremia associated with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

Few publications of prospective studies have described patient outcomes in community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP)-associated bacteremia. Our objective, in performing this subgroup analysis, was to assess outcomes in subjects with CABP-associated bacteremia in 2 randomized, double-blind clinical studies comparing treatment with ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone.

METHODS

Our analysis summarizes baseline subject demographics, distribution of baseline pathogens isolated from blood cultures, clinical response rates at Day 4, and clinical cure rates at end of therapy and test of cure (8 to 15 days after end of therapy) in subjects with bacteremic CABP in the ceFtarOline Community-acquired pneUmonia trial vS ceftriaxone in hospitalized patients (FOCUS) studies.

RESULTS

In the FOCUS studies, 23 of 614 patients in the ceftaroline fosamil-treated group and 22 of 614 patients in the ceftriaxone-treated group had CABP-associated bacteremia. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most common baseline bloodstream isolate. For subjects with CABP-associated bacteremia, clinical response/cure rates were similar at Day 4 (60.9% vs 59.1%), end of therapy (69.6% vs 72.7%), and test of cure (69.6% vs 68.2%) for ceftaroline fosamil and ceftriaxone, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with CABP-associated bacteremia, ceftaroline fosamil demonstrated similar clinical outcomes at Day 4, end of therapy, and test of cure compared with ceftriaxone.

Early versus later response to treatment in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: analysis of the REACH study

Background

Key goals in the treatment of CAP include early response to treatment and achievement of clinical stability. The US FDA recommends early response endpoints (72 hours after initiation of treatment) in clinical trials for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. REACH (REtrospective Study to Assess the Clinical Management of Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections [cSSTI] or CAP in the Hospital Setting) was a retrospective observational study, providing current data on the clinical management and resource burden of CAP in real-life settings in European hospitals. This analysis reviews the characteristics and outcomes of patients showing early positive response to treatment (time to clinical stability [TCS] ≤4 days, as assessed by Halm’s criteria) compared with patients with later positive response (TCS >4 days).

Methods

Patients were adults, hospitalized with CAP (2010–2011) and requiring in-hospital treatment with intravenous antibiotics.

Results

Of the 2039 patients included in REACH, 585 (28.7%) had TCS assessed by Halm’s criteria: 332 (56.8%) showed early response (median 3.0 days), and 253 (43.2%) showed later response to treatment (median 7.0 days). Use of Halm’s criteria varied across participating countries, ranging from 0% (Belgium) to 49.1% (UK). Patient characteristics and relevant medical history were similar between the two groups. There were no notable differences in initial antibiotic therapy between groups, except that more early responders had been treated with amoxicillin–clavulanate and amoxicillin monotherapy (22.6%; 7.5%, respectively) than later responders (5.9%; 1.2%, respectively). Initial treatment modification and re-infection or recurrences were less frequent in early responders compared with later responders (14.2% and 3.3% vs. 34.8% and 5.9%, respectively). Early responders had a shorter duration of hospitalization (mean 9.4 ± SD 7.0; median 8.0 days vs. mean 15.6 ± SD 10.5; median 12.0 days, respectively), lower rate of ICU admission (3.3% vs. 21.3%) and shorter duration of ICU stay (mean 6.2 ± SD 5.7; median 4.0 days vs. mean 10.4 ± SD 10.1; median 8.0 days, respectively) compared with later responders. Mortality was low in both groups.

Conclusions

Achieving early clinical stabilization in CAP (≤4 days) is associated with improved outcomes, lower requirement for initial treatment modification or readmission and lower resource use, compared with a later response.

Trial registration

NCT01293435

The changing microbiologic epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common infectious disease in the United States and the incidence continues to grow as the aging population increases. Overall, in-hospital patient mortality rates have been reported to be as high as 18%. Management of patients with CAP has been challenged by the evolution of resistant pathogens (particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus) that have reduced susceptibility to recommended standard antimicrobial agents. Streptococcus pneumoniae continues to be the most frequently identified pathogen in CAP and recently, S. aureus has been found to be the second most often identified pathogen. Data from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program has shown declining susceptibility of pneumococci to penicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and ceftriaxone from 1998 through 2011. In the Assessing Worldwide Resistance Evaluation (AWARE) surveillance program, > 50% of all S. aureus isolates from patient bloodstream infections, skin and skin structure infections, and pneumonia were methicillin-resistant. Stratifying risk factors to identify patients at risk for community-acquired multidrug-resistant pathogens should be considered when selecting therapy. Differences in microbiology and outcomes have been noted in patients presenting from the community with recent exposure to the health care system (eg, nursing home residents, patients with a recent hospital admission). These patients are at an increased risk of an infection caused by a multidrug-resistant pathogen. Understanding a patient's risk for drug-resistant pathogens will allow the physician to choose an appropriate empiric treatment regimen to optimize clinical outcomes.

Ceftaroline fosamil: a review of its use in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia

Ceftaroline, the active metabolite of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil (Zinforo, Teflaro), is an advanced-generation, parenteral cephalosporin with broad-spectrum antibacterial activity in vitro against Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Gram-negative bacteria, including Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis, but not Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Ceftaroline has demonstrated a low potential for the selection of resistance in vitro for drug-resistant Gram-positive organisms, including MRSA, as well as for Gram-negative respiratory pathogens. In pivotal phase III studies, intravenous ceftaroline fosamil demonstrated noninferiority to intravenous vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) and intravenous ceftriaxone in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) [Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV]; however, patients with CAP admitted to the intensive care unit were not evaluated. Ceftaroline fosamil was generally well tolerated in these trials, with an adverse event profile similar to that of other cephalosporins. Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported adverse event; however, the risk of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea with ceftaroline fosamil appeared to be low. Potential limitations of the drug include the lack of an oral formulation and the requirement for twice-daily administration. Nonetheless, ceftaroline fosamil represents an attractive option (either alone or in combination with other agents) for the initial empirical treatment of patients hospitalized with cSSTIs (including those with suspected MRSA infection) or CAP (PORT risk class III or IV) who require intravenous antimicrobial therapy. As with all antibacterial agents, ceftaroline fosamil should be used in accordance with good antimicrobial stewardship.

Emergency management of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: what is new since the 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society guidelines

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major health problem in the United States and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Patients with CAP commonly present to emergency departments where physicians must make critical decisions regarding diagnosis and management of pneumonia in a timely fashion, with emphasis on efficient and cost-effective diagnostic choices, consideration of emerging antimicrobial resistance, timely initiation of antibiotics, and appropriate site-of-care decisions. In light of the burden that pneumonia places on health care systems and the emergency department in particular, this article reviews significant developments in the management of CAP in the United States 5 years since the publication of the 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of CAP in adults, focusing on recent studies and recommendations for managing CAP, the primary bacterial pathogens responsible for CAP, and trends in resistance, new diagnostic technologies, and newer antimicrobials approved for the treatment of CAP. These new data and additional guidelines pertaining to the treatment of CAP further our knowledge and understanding of this challenging infection. Furthermore, appreciation of the availability of new diagnostic testing and therapeutic options will help meet the demand for improved management of CAP.