Abstract
Background
This multicentre, observational, retrospective chart review study assessed ceftaroline fosamil treatment patterns and outcomes in adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in usual care settings.
Methods
Anonymized patient data were extracted from hospital records of adults with CAP who received ≥4 consecutive IV ceftaroline fosamil doses at sites in Brazil, Colombia, France, Greece, Italy, Russia and Spain.
Results
The dataset included 185 patients (58.9% male; mean age 62.2 years), of whom 128 (69.2%) had severe CAP defined by CURB-65, PSI/PORT score or physician judgement. Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 44; 23.8%) and Staphylococcus aureus [MSSA (n = 15) and MRSA (n = 14)] were the most frequently identified pathogens. Clinical response occurred in 151 (81.6%) patients overall, and in 104 (81.3%) severe CAP patients. Response within ≤4 and >4 days occurred in 79 (42.7%) and 62 (33.5%) patients (unknown, n = 10), respectively. Twenty (10.8%) patients required readmission within 30 days. Thirty-day all-cause mortality rates were 9.7% (n = 18) overall and 10.2% (n = 13) in severe CAP. In sensitivity analysis using ICU admission as a more objective marker of severe CAP (n = 75), clinical response and 30 day mortality occurred in 57 (76.0%) and 10 (13.3%) patients, respectively. Overall, clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with >60% shorter length of ICU stay (3.6 versus 9.2 days), and >30% lower hospital costs ($8449 versus $12 559) versus non-responders.
Conclusions
Ceftaroline fosamil was effective in treating adults with CAP, including severe CAP, in Europe and Latin America. Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use compared with non-responders.
Introduction
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and healthcare resource use.1 CAP is the most common cause of death due to infection in Europe;2 mortality is associated with advanced age, comorbid conditions and CAP severity.3 The emergence of antimicrobial resistance, particularly among Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates, has led to current empirical antimicrobial treatment options for CAP being compromised in some regions, including some parts of Latin America.4,5 There is therefore a need, particularly in patients at risk of treatment failure, for alternative therapies that improve empirical treatment success rates.
Treatment guidelines for CAP in Europe and Latin America recommend empirical treatment at the outset, with factors such as disease severity, individual risk of mortality, and susceptibility patterns of pathogens against available antibiotics in the geographical region contributing to decisions regarding treatment choice.6,7
Ceftaroline is a fifth-generation cephalosporin with in vitro activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including MSSA and MRSA, streptococci, including MDR S. pneumoniae, and common (non-ESBL-producing) Gram-negative organisms (excluding Pseudomonas aeruginosa).8,9
Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of active ceftaroline, has been shown in randomized multinational trials and observational studies to be an effective treatment for patients hospitalized with CAP or complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs).10–17 For patients with CAP, ceftaroline fosamil has demonstrated clinical superiority to ceftriaxone, a standard treatment in this setting, and simulation data indicate that at standard doses it achieves greater pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target attainment than ceftriaxone or levofloxacin against common CAP pathogens.18,19
This study assessed treatment use patterns, healthcare resource use and treatment outcomes in adult patients hospitalized with CAP or cSSTI treated with ceftaroline fosamil in a usual care setting in Europe and Latin America. Results for patients with CAP are presented here.
Material and methods
Ethics
The study was approved by the relevant local independent ethics committees, and/or institutional review boards approved the final study protocol for each of the sites in this multicentre study (details for each site provided in the Supplementary Methods, available as Supplementary data at JAC-AMR Online). Informed consent was waived for the majority of sites due to the retrospective nature of the research; for the remaining sites, informed consent forms were obtained from patients (Supplementary Methods). The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Study design and patients
This was a multicentre, observational, retrospective chart review study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04198571) conducted in Spain, Greece, Russia, Italy, France, Colombia and Brazil. Hospital sites identified all patients dispensed ≥4 IV doses of ceftaroline fosamil on or before 31 May 2019 by querying their hospital pharmacy dispensing records. Records of potentially eligible patients were then screened manually by site staff to identify patients who met all inclusion criteria without meeting any of the exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were: adult patients (≥18 years old) with CAP who had received ≥4 consecutive IV doses of ceftaroline fosamil on or before 31 May 2019. Diagnostic criteria for CAP are included in the Supplementary Methods. Severity of CAP was determined according to pneumonia severity index (PSI)/pneumonia patient outcomes research team (PORT) risk classification, confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and ≥65 years of age (CURB-65) score or other prognostic scoring system as entered by the physician on the patient case report form (CRF). A sensitivity analysis, using patients who were admitted to the ICU (duration >0 days) as an objective marker of severe CAP, was also conducted.
Patients were excluded if their medical records were missing documentation of CAP according to the diagnostic criteria, details of ceftaroline fosamil dosing, success/failure of treatment, reason for discontinuation of treatment, or discharge date and status. Patients who developed signs and symptoms of sepsis or septic shock (definitions provided in the Supplementary Methods) during the index hospitalization were included in the study, but patients who developed hospital-acquired pneumonia or ventilator-associated pneumonia ≥48 h after the index hospital admission were not included.
Analysis
Relevant data, including patient, disease and treatment characteristics, and clinical and healthcare resource use outcomes data, were extracted from hospital records of eligible patients from 3 months before the index hospital admission until 30 days after hospital discharge date or death, whichever occurred first.
Treatment response was defined as demonstrating clinical stability (defined according to the IDSA guidelines20 as temperature of ≤37.8°C, heart rate of ≤100 beats/min, respiratory rate of ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure of ≥90 mmHg, oxygen saturation of ≥90%, and confusion/disorientation recorded as absent) and clinical improvement [defined as improvement of at least one of four symptoms present at baseline (i.e. cough, dyspnoea, pleuritic chest pain or sputum production) with worsening of none]. Clinical cure was defined as no further IV antibiotic, switch to an oral antibiotic, or IV antibiotic treatment streamlining/de-escalation at any time after the index dose, prior to hospital discharge. Clinical failure was defined as switch to another IV antibiotic due to an adverse reaction, drug–drug interaction, insufficient response, or a microbiological diagnosis indicating that the pathogen was not susceptible to ceftaroline fosamil.
Patient characteristics, clinical management and treatment responses were summarized descriptively; healthcare resource use was evaluated by treatment response to ceftaroline fosamil. No a priori hypotheses were specified; a formal sample size calculation was therefore not applicable.
Results
Patient and disease characteristics
A total of 185 patients with CAP were included [58.9% male; mean age 62.2 years (excluding three patients aged >90 years)], the majority at sites in Spain, Greece, Italy and Russia (Table 1). The most frequent comorbidities present at index hospitalization were diabetes mellitus (22.7%), COPD (17.3%) and congestive heart failure (17.3%).
Table 1.
Demographic and baseline characteristics and isolated pathogens of patients with CAP at index hospitalization
| Characteristic | Patients (n = 185) |
|---|---|
| Age, years, n (%) | |
| >90 | 3 (1.6) |
| ≤90 | 182 (98.4) |
| Mean (SD) | 62.2 (18.9) |
| ≤65 | 90 (48.6) |
| >65 | 95 (51.4) |
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Male | 109 (58.9) |
| Female | 76 (41.1) |
| Country, n (%) | |
| France | 16 (8.6) |
| Greece | 53 (28.6) |
| Italy | 24 (13.0) |
| Spain | 54 (29.2) |
| Russia | 25 (13.5) |
| Brazil | 6 (3.2) |
| Colombia | 7 (3.8) |
| Weight, kg, mean (SD)a | 74.0 (19.4) |
| BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD)b | 26.1 (6.2) |
| Type of residence/cohabitation pre-index admission, n (%)c | |
| Nursing home or extended-care facility | 8 (4.3) |
| Living independently | 122 (65.9) |
| Living with care support (family, friend, hired support) | 46 (24.9) |
| Other | 1 (0.5) |
| Smoking habits, n (%) | |
| Non-smoker | 71 (38.4) |
| Ex-smoker (stopped ≥365 days ago) | 38 (20.5) |
| Occasional smoker (<1 tobacco product per day) | 4 (2.2) |
| Habitual smoker (≥1 tobacco products per day) | 38 (20.5) |
| Unknown | 34 (18.4) |
| qSOFA conducted, n (%) | |
| Yes | 74 (40.0) |
| qSOFA component assessment, n (%) | |
| Glasgow coma scale <15 | 15 (20.3) |
| Systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg | 15 (20.3) |
| High respiration rate (≥22 breaths per min) | 45 (60.8) |
| Patient required isolation, n (%) | |
| Yes | 20 (10.8) |
| Duration of isolation, days, mean (SD) | 16.5 (14.0) |
| Isolated pathogens, n (%) | |
| S. pneumoniae | 44 (23.8) |
| S. aureus (all) | 33 (17.8) |
| MRSA | 14 (7.6) |
| MSSA | 15 (8.1) |
| Methicillin susceptibility not reported | 4 (2.2) |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 3 (1.6) |
| Haemophilus influenzae | 3 (1.6) |
| Legionella spp.d | 2 (1.1) |
| Escherichia coli | 2 (1.1) |
| Haemophilus parainfluenzae | 1 (0.5) |
| P. aeruginosad | 1 (0.5) |
| Other/unknown/none of the above | 113 (61.1) |
a n = 90 (data not available for 95 patients).
b n = 79 (data not available for 106 patients).
c n = 177 (data not available for eight patients).
dNot susceptible to ceftaroline fosamil.
In total, 128 (69.2%) patients were graded as having severe CAP; severity assessment was unknown in 10 patients (5.4%). Where prognostic scoring system information was available, CAP severity was determined by PSI/PORT score in 18 patients (mean score: 90.1) and by CURB-65 score in 41 patients (mean score: 2.2). Severity of CAP was attributed to being determined by physician judgement for the remaining patients. In total, 75 (40.5%) patients had ICU admission ≥1 day and were included in the sensitivity analyses of patients with severe CAP.
Ten patients (5.4%) were admitted with a recurrent episode of CAP; 38 (20.5%) patients had sepsis, 16 (8.6%) had severe sepsis, 38 (20.5%) had septic shock and 56 (30.3%) required mechanical ventilation. Results of quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) are shown in Table 1.
The most frequently identified pathogens were S. pneumoniae (23.8%), Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant and -susceptible strains (17.8%), and ‘other microorganisms’ (14.1%; Table 1).
Treatment characteristics
Data on ceftaroline fosamil treatment during the index hospitalization are shown in Table 2. Median (range) ceftaroline fosamil treatment duration was 7 (2–35) days at daily doses of 1200 (200–1800) mg.
Table 2.
Details of ceftaroline fosamil treatment during index hospitalization
| Treatment variable | Patients (n = 185) |
|---|---|
| Ceftaroline fosamil line of therapy, n (%) | |
| 1 | 50 (27.0) |
| 2 | 49 (26.5) |
| 3 | 46 (24.9) |
| ≥4 | 40 (21.5) |
| Duration of treatment, days, median (range) | 7 (2–35) |
| Time from admission to first dose, days, median (range) | 1.9 (0–36) |
| Time from symptom onset to first dose, days, median (range) | 6 (0–38) |
| Daily dose, mg, median (range) | 1200 (200–1800) |
| Treatment type, n (%)a | |
| Empirical | 138 (74.6) |
| Definitive/specific | 41 (22.0) |
| Monotherapy/combination therapy, n (%) | |
| Monotherapy | 56 (30.3) |
| Combination therapyb | 129 (69.7) |
| Aminoglycoside | 3 (2.3) |
| β-lactam | 8 (6.2) |
| Carbapenem | 7 (5.4) |
| Ceftriaxone | 5 (3.9) |
| Cephalosporin | 1 (0.8) |
| Glycopeptide | 5 (3.9) |
| Macrolide | 2 (1.6) |
| β-lactam/combination | 36 (27.9) |
| Sulphonamide | 57 (44.2) |
| Clindamycin | 5 (3.9) |
| Other | 5 (3.9) |
| Administration location, n (%) | |
| ICU | 66 (35.7) |
| General ward | 115 (62.2) |
| At home | 1 (0.5) |
| Medical clinic | 30 (16.2) |
a n = 179 (data not available for six patients).
b n = 99 (data not available for 30 patients).
Ceftaroline fosamil was used empirically (i.e. in the absence of definitive microbial pathogen identification) in 138 (74.6%) patients, and as first-line therapy in 50 (27.0%) patients. In total, 134 patients (72.4%) received another antibiotic treatment for the index infection prior to receiving ceftaroline fosamil; across all treatment lines the most frequently administered were quinolones and ceftriaxone (Table S1). Quinolones were the agents most frequently given as first-line therapy [n = 39/134 (29.1%)]. The median (range) number of lines of therapy of other antibiotics given prior to ceftaroline fosamil was 2 (1–8) (Table S1). Fifty-six (30.3%) patients received ceftaroline fosamil monotherapy. When used in combination, the most frequently coadministered antibiotics were sulphonamides (Table S2).
In total, 99 (53.5%) patients had their treatment modified following treatment with ceftaroline fosamil; where reasons for treatment switch were provided, the most frequently recorded were lack of efficacy [n = 39 (39.4%)] and results of susceptibility test/pathogen identification [n = 26 (26.3%)] (Table S3). The antibiotics most frequently administered after switching from ceftaroline fosamil were quinolones [n = 45 (45.5%)], clindamycin [n = 32 (32.3%)], and β-lactam/combination [n = 27 (27.3%)] (Table S3).
Clinical outcomes
Clinical response occurred in 151 (81.6%) patients, among whom response within ≤4 days and >4 days occurred in 79 (52.3%) and 62 (41.1%), respectively (Table 3). Clinical response in those with severe CAP occurred in 104 of 128 (81.3%) patients based on physician judgement, and in 57 of 75 (76.0%) patients who were admitted to the ICU (Table 3).
Table 3.
Clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil treatment
| Outcome measure | All patients (n = 185) | Patients with severe CAP (n = 128) | Patients admitted to the ICU (n = 75) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment response, n (%) | |||
| Clinical responsea | 151 (81.6) | 104 (81.3) | 57 (76.0) |
| Clinical failure | 34 (18.4) | 24 (18.8) | 18 (24.0) |
| Reason for failure | |||
| Insufficient response | 21 (61.8) | 16 (66.7) | 10 (55.6) |
| Death due to index infection | 7 (20.6) | 6 (25.0) | 4 (22.2) |
| Death due to other | 2 (5.9) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (5.6) |
| Relapse or recurrence | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 1 (5.6) |
| Unknown | 2 (5.9) | 1 (4.2) | 2 (11.1) |
| Time to clinical response, days, mean (SD)b | 5.0 (3.5) | 5.7 (3.7) | 5.7 (3.9) |
| Early clinical response, n (%) | |||
| >4 days | 62/151 (33.5) | 54/104 (51.9) | 25/57 (43.9) |
| ≤4 days | 79/151 (42.7) | 46/104 (44.2) | 28/57 (49.1) |
| Unknown | 10/151 (5.4) | 4/104 (3.8) | 4/57 (7.0) |
| Clinical cure achieved, n (%)c,d | |||
| Yes | 115 (62.2) | 78 (60.9) | 44 (48.7) |
| No | 35 (18.9) | 25 (19.5) | 13 (17.3) |
| Time to clinical cure, days, mean (SD)e | 7.8 (4.3) | 8.1 (4.2) | 7.2 (3.3) |
| Time to clinical stability, days, mean (SD) | 3.8 (2.9) | 4.4 (3.0) | 4.5 (3.1) |
| Time to clinical improvement, days, mean (SD) | 4.5 (3.3) | 5.1 (3.5) | 5.0 (3.7) |
| Discharge status, n (%) | |||
| Died in hospital | 18 (9.7) | 13 (10.2) | 10 (13.3) |
| Discharged to a nursing home or extended-care facility | 28 (15.1) | 21 (16.4) | 15 (20.0) |
| Discharged to independent living (with or without support) | 138 (74.6) | 93 (72.7) | 50 (66.7) |
| Other | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0) |
| Re-hospitalized within 30 days of initial discharge, n (%) | |||
| Yes | 20 (10.8) | 12 (9.4) | 11 (14.7) |
| No | 129 (69.7) | 89 (69.5) | 46 (61.3) |
| Unknown | 36 (19.5) | 27 (21.1) | 18 (24.0) |
| Number of re-hospitalizations for those re-hospitalized, median (range) | 1 (1–3) | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) |
| Vital status at end of follow-up, n (%)f | |||
| Patient still alive | 126 (68.1) | 86 (67.2) | 57 (76.0) |
| Patient deceased | 13 (7.0) | 6 (4.7) | 12 (16.0) |
| If deceased, duration from discharge, days, mean (SD) | 269 (300.6) | 311 (397.5) | 473 (603.9) |
aDefined as demonstrating clinical stability (defined according to the IDSA guidelines20 as temperature of ≤37.8°C, heart rate of ≤100 beats/min, respiratory rate of ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure of ≥90 mmHg, oxygen saturation of ≥90%, and confusion/disorientation recorded as absent) and clinical improvement [defined as improvement of at least one of four symptoms present at baseline (i.e. cough, dyspnoea, pleuritic chest pain or sputum production) with worsening of none].
bAll patients, n = 141 (data not available for 10 patients); patients with severe CAP, n = 100 (data not available for four patients); patients admitted to the ICU, n = 53 (data not available for four patients).
cAll patients, n = 150 (data not available for 35 patients); patients with severe CAP, n = 103 (data not available for 25 patients); patients admitted to the ICU, n = 57 (data not available for 18 patients).
dDefined as no further IV antibiotic, switch to an oral antibiotic, or IV antibiotic treatment streamlining/de-escalation at any time after the index dose, prior to hospital discharge.
eAll patients, n = 108 (data not available for seven patients); patients with severe CAP, n = 74 (data not available for four patients); patients admitted to the ICU, n = 40 (data not available for four patients).
fAll patients, n = 139 (data not available for 46 patients); ICU patients, n = 69 (data not available for six patients).
Clinical failure occurred in 34 (18.4%) patients; the most common reason for clinical failure was insufficient response (Table 3). Where known, the most common pathogens isolated at baseline for patients with clinical failure were S. pneumoniae [n = 6 (17.6%)], MRSA [n = 5 (14.7%)] and MSSA [n = 4 (11.8%)]. In total, 23 of 34 patients with clinical failure received antibiotic treatment for the index infection following ceftaroline fosamil; the most common agent received was clindamycin [n = 17 (50.0%)].
Clinical response was numerically higher, and with a numerically higher occurrence of early time to response, in patients receiving ceftaroline fosamil as first-line therapy compared with later lines of therapy (Table 4).
Table 4.
Clinical outcomes by ceftaroline fosamil line of therapy
| Outcome measure | All patients (n = 185) | Patients with severe CAP (n = 128) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First-line ceftaroline fosamil (n = 50) | Later-line ceftaroline fosamil (n = 135) | First-line ceftaroline fosamil (n = 35) | Later-line ceftaroline fosamil (n = 93) | |
| Treatment response, n (%) | ||||
| Clinical responsea | 44 (88.0) | 107 (79.3) | 29 (82.9) | 75 (80.7) |
| Clinical failure | 6 (12.0) | 28 (20.7) | 6 (17.1) | 18 (19.4) |
| Time to clinical response, days, mean (SD) | 4.9 (3.3) | 5.1 (3.6) | 5.5 (3.4) | 5.8 (3.8) |
| Early clinical response, n (%) | ||||
| >4 days | 18/44 (40.9) | 44/107 (41.1) | 16/29 (55.2) | 38/75 (50.7) |
| ≤4 days | 25/44 (56.8) | 54/107 (50.5) | 13/29 (44.8) | 33/75 (44.0) |
| Unknown | 1/44 (2.3) | 9/107 (8.4) | 0 | 4/75 (5.3) |
| Clinical cure achieved, n (%) | ||||
| Yes | 33 (66.0) | 82 (60.7) | 22 (62.9) | 56 (60.2) |
| No | 10 (20.0) | 25 (18.5) | 6 (17.1) | 19 (20.4) |
| Unknown | 7 (14.0) | 28 (20.7) | 7 (20.0) | 18 (19.4) |
| Time to clinical cure, days, mean (SD) | 6.7 (4.0) | 8.3 (4.4) | 7.1 (4.5) | 8.5 (4.0) |
| Time to clinical stability, days, mean (SD) | 3.6 (2.4) | 3.9 (3.1) | 4.1 (2.4) | 4.6 (3.2) |
| Time to clinical improvement, days, mean (SD) | 4.9 (3.4) | 4.4 (3.3) | 5.4 (3.5) | 4.9 (3.6) |
aDefined as demonstrating clinical stability (defined according to the IDSA guidelines20 as temperature of ≤37.8°C, heart rate of ≤100 beats/min, respiratory rate of ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure of ≥90 mmHg, oxygen saturation of ≥90%, and confusion/disorientation recorded as absent) and clinical improvement [defined as improvement of at least one of four symptoms present at baseline (i.e. cough, dyspnoea, pleuritic chest pain or sputum production) with worsening of none].
Death due to the index infection occurred in seven (3.8%) patients. Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 18 (9.7%) overall and in 13 (10.2%) patients with severe CAP based on physician judgement. In patients who were admitted to the ICU, 30 day mortality occurred in 10 (13.3%).
Of pathogens identified in ≥5 patients with microbial data available, those most frequently associated with mortality were MRSA, S. pneumoniae and MSSA (Table S4).
Survival rate was numerically higher in patients receiving ceftaroline fosamil as first-line therapy, compared with a later line of therapy (Table 5).
Table 5.
Survival status by ceftaroline fosamil line of therapy
| Ceftaroline fosamil line of therapy, n/N (%) | All patientsa | Patients with severe CAPb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deceased (n = 31) |
Alive (n = 126) |
Deceased (n = 19) |
Alive (n = 86) |
|
| Line 1 | 1/41 (2.4) | 40/41 (97.6) | 1/27 (3.7) | 26/27 (96.3) |
| Line 2 | 11/35 (31.4) | 24/35 (68.6) | 10/28 (35.7) | 18/28 (64.3) |
| Line 3 | 12/42 (28.6) | 30/42 (71.4) | 4/22 (18.2) | 18/22 (81.8) |
| Line 4+ | 7/39 (18.0) | 32/39 (82.1) | 4/28 (14.3) | 24/28 (85.7) |
aData available for 157/185 patients.
bData available for 105/128 patients.
Overall, 20 (10.8%) patients were readmitted to hospital within 30 days of initial discharge. Of those readmitted, the cause of readmission was the index infection in seven (35.0%) patients, and other reasons in 13 (65.0%) patients.
Healthcare resource use
Overall mean (SD) duration of index hospitalization was 19.4 (18.3) days. Mean (SD) duration of ICU stay was 4.6 (8.5) days (Table 6). Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with shorter length of stay in hospital (mean 18.3 versus 24.1 days) and in the ICU (mean 3.6 versus 9.2 days), as well as with lower hospital costs (>30%), compared with non-responders (Table 6). Breakdown of country-specific healthcare costs is shown in Table S5.
Table 6.
Healthcare resource outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil treatment
| Outcome measure | Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamila | |
|---|---|---|
| Response (n = 151) | No response (n = 34) | |
| Length of stay, days, mean (SD) | ||
| Hospital | 18.3 (17.5) | 24.1 (20.9) |
| ICU | 3.6 (6.7) | 9.2 (13.2) |
| Hospital costs, USD, mean (SD) | ||
| Standard hospitalb | 8449.3 (12 581.6) | 12 559.1 (13 908.4) |
| Advanced-level hospitalc | 23 031.7 (29 917.1) | 35 961.6 (37 359.3) |
USD, US dollars.
aClinical response defined as demonstrating clinical stability (defined according to the IDSA guidelines20 as temperature of ≤37.8°C, heart rate of ≤100 beats/min, respiratory rate of ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure of ≥90 mmHg, oxygen saturation of ≥90%, and confusion/disorientation recorded as absent) and clinical improvement [defined as improvement of at least one of four symptoms present at baseline (i.e. cough, dyspnoea, pleuritic chest pain or sputum production) with worsening of none].
bStandard hospital cost: total time in hospital multiplied by per diem rate of standard hospital general ward.
cAdvanced hospital cost: total time in hospital multiplied by per diem rate of hospitals providing the highest level of medical services.
Discussion
This study assessed ceftaroline fosamil real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in hospitalized adults with CAP in Europe and Latin America in a usual care setting. Ceftaroline fosamil provided effective treatment for patients with CAP, with numerically higher clinical response and survival rates in patients receiving ceftaroline fosamil as first-line therapy, compared with later lines of therapy.
In line with the protocol for this retrospective chart review study, severity of CAP was determined according to PSI/PORT risk classification, CURB-65 score, other prognostic scoring system, or ‘unknown’ as entered by the physician on the patient CRF. The ‘other’ category may have included the IDSA/American Thoracic Society (ATS) criteria,21 amongst others. However, of the 128 patients classified by the physician as having severe CAP, prognostic scoring system information was only available for a limited number; accordingly, a working definition based on CURB-65, PSI/PORT and physician judgement was used to define severe CAP. As the available data were insufficient to objectively classify CAP severity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, using patients who were admitted to the ICU for any amount of time as an objective marker of severe CAP. In total, 75 (41%) patients had ICU admission and were included in the sensitivity analyses. The use of ICU admission, while not wholly objective due to institutional variations in admission practices and criteria, is endorsed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), ESCMID and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) as a surrogate indicator of severe CAP.22 Importantly, treatment response to ceftaroline fosamil was demonstrated regardless of CAP severity, occurring in 82% of patients overall, and in 81% of those with severe CAP based on physician judgement and 76% of patients who were admitted to the ICU.
Ceftaroline fosamil was given empirically in 75% of hospitalized patients with CAP, potentially reflecting physician suspicion of MRSA in these patients. In clinical practice, as the identity of aetiological CAP pathogens is often unknown, patients are typically diagnosed based on clinical signs and symptoms.20,23 Empirical therapy needs to be active against the most likely causative pathogens while not providing excessively broad antimicrobial coverage. As initial treatment failure is associated with longer hospital stays, higher mortality rates and increased healthcare costs,24 the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy is crucial. The incidence of MRSA as the causative pathogen for CAP varies geographically and may be comparatively higher in some of the countries involved in the study. These considerations may explain why a large proportion of patients received ceftaroline fosamil first-line for (empirical) treatment.
As expected for the patient population, S. pneumoniae was the most frequently identified pathogen in this study, accounting for 24%. S. aureus accounted for 18% of organisms identified. This percentage is higher than is often stated in the literature, with previous studies and case series from Europe and North America typically reporting values of ∼2%–5%.25–27 However, considerable geographical variation in bacterial aetiology exists, with rates of 17% S. aureus CAP previously observed in Latin America.28 Additionally, in an evaluation of epidemiological data from multiple studies, the prevalence of S. aureus CAP was found to be 0%–1% in outpatients, 0%–4% in patients admitted to hospital, 0%–19% in those admitted to intensive care, and 7%–29% in elderly hospitalized patients.29 Furthermore, it has been estimated that in up to 36% of severe CAP cases no causative pathogen is identified, suggesting that the prevalence of S. aureus may potentially be higher than previously reported.30,31 Of note, S. aureus CAP, particularly that caused by MRSA, is associated with increased severity of disease compared with that of pneumococcal origin.26 Indeed, in the current study where high levels of S. aureus were documented, 69% of patients were categorized as having severe CAP based on prognostic scoring info and/or physician judgement, and 41% were categorized based on ICU admission.
While differences in trial design and cohorts inevitably exist between this retrospective analysis and the Phase 3 randomized, controlled clinical studies, the treatment response results observed here are nevertheless in accordance with the Phase 3 trials.10,11,13 In the FOCUS 1 and 2 CAP trials, ceftaroline fosamil at the standard adult dose [600 mg every 12 h by 1 h IV infusion (adjusted for patients with renal impairment)] was compared with ceftriaxone among adults hospitalized with PORT risk class III or IV CAP. Ceftaroline fosamil was non-inferior to ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 h in the individual FOCUS trials,10,11 and an integrated analysis of the trials demonstrated numerically higher clinical cure rates for ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone (84% versus 78%).32 In a further trial in Asia, standard-dose ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone 2 g every 24 h.13 Of note, patients with confirmed MRSA infection were excluded from these trials due to the inactivity of ceftriaxone against MRSA. However, findings from a recent systematic review and qualitative analysis of real-world outcomes studies suggest ceftaroline fosamil may be a possible alternative to linezolid and vancomycin for treatment of MRSA pneumonia.33 Ceftaroline fosamil, in combination with a macrolide or respiratory fluroquinolone, is included as a recommended empirical treatment option for non-severe and severe inpatient CAP in the IDSA/ATS CAP guidance (ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidance advocates for macrolides in favour of fluoroquinolones),22 and is also included as an option for MRSA coverage in the IDSA/ATS hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia recommendations.20,34
For any new antibiotic, it is important to assess real-world effectiveness, to allow evaluation of its use across a broad range of patients. The Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro® Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) has reported several analyses on real-world use of ceftaroline fosamil in the USA. The overall clinical cure rate in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in CAPTURE (n = 398) was 79%,12 in line with that observed in patients in the current analysis as well as in the FOCUS and ASIA CAP trials.10,11,13 Clinical cure rates were similar regardless of whether ceftaroline fosamil was given as monotherapy or combination therapy, or as first-line or second-line therapy. These findings suggest a potential role for ceftaroline fosamil in the treatment of patient populations who were excluded from the Phase 3 trials, including those with MRSA CAP.12
The observations from the present CAP study support findings from the ceftaroline fosamil Phase 3 clinical trials,10,11,13 as well as those gathered from real-world data,12 showing ceftaroline to be effective in hospitalized patients with CAP, including those with severe illness and those with bacteraemic infection. Bacteraemia increases with CAP severity and has been associated with higher mortality, although it is considered to remain underestimated in clinical practice.35–37 Interestingly, in an integrated analysis of the FOCUS 1 and 2 studies, the clinical cure rate was numerically higher in bacteraemic patients in the ceftaroline arm compared with the ceftriaxone arm (71.4% and 58.8%, respectively).38 Additionally, in a cohort of patients with S. aureus bacteraemia-associated CAP collected from CAPTURE, ceftaroline fosamil treatment had a high (67%) overall success rate, supporting its use as a potential treatment option for this patient population.39
The overall 30 day readmission rate in the current study was 11%. This is similar to results from a US retrospective chart review study of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with MRSA pneumonia, where the 30 day readmission rate was 9%.40 Risk factors for 30 day readmission include age, hospitalization frequency during the prior 3 months, presence of comorbidities, and home healthcare availability.41
First-line ceftaroline fosamil therapy was associated with numerically lower mortality rates than later lines of use. A retrospective cohort analysis of 515 patients with CAP-related bacteraemia from the US Premier database found in-hospital mortality to be numerically lower (11%) in patients receiving ceftaroline fosamil as first-line therapy versus those receiving it as second-line therapy (15%).42 However, real-world studies have shown ceftaroline fosamil to be effective for treatment of CAP, regardless of whether it is used as first- or second-line therapy.12,43 In the present analysis, 30 day all-cause mortality rates were 5/57 (9%) in patients with non-severe CAP and 13/128 (10%) in those with severe CAP. The relatively small difference in mortality rates is somewhat unexpected and may reflect the comparatively small non-severe group and/or the observational nature of the study. Moreover, as prognostic data were not available for all patients, it is possible that some might not have been assigned to the appropriate severity group. In the sensitivity analysis, using ICU admission as an objective marker, 30 day mortality rate was slightly higher at 13%.
Mortality rates in this study were overall higher than those in the FOCUS 1 and 2 clinical studies (2% and 3%, respectively),10,11 perhaps reflecting differences in baseline demographic and microbiological characteristics, as well as the high proportion of patients with severe disease in this study.
Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of CAP was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use, including shorter lengths of both hospital and ICU stay, compared with non-responders. Healthcare costs were also reduced in responders versus non-responders. Of note, similar reductions in costs were also observed in the cSSTI patient dataset (data on file; to be reported separately).
Data from CAPTURE showed that those who received ceftaroline fosamil as first-line therapy tended to have shorter lengths of hospital stays and lower associated total hospital costs.44,45 Furthermore, data from a cost-consequences model predicted that, in patients with CAP who responded to treatment, more would be discharged early with ceftaroline fosamil than with ceftriaxone (30.6% versus 26.1%).46 Of note, in the subgroup of patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, ceftaroline fosamil was cost-saving versus ceftriaxone by 1.2%, while significantly increasing the number of patients achieving initial antibiotic treatment success and early discharge (32.1% versus 24.6%).
Additionally, data from a 3 year hospital budget impact model showed a total cost saving of $1102 when treating a patient with CAP with ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone ($18 925 versus $20 027; sensitivity analysis range: −$6 to −$2223).47 Combined, these data support the proposal that ceftaroline fosamil may be a cost-effective treatment option in patients with CAP.
A strength of the current study is that the data obtained may be more representative of real-world use of ceftaroline fosamil in patients, compared with patients enrolled in clinical trials with restrictive study eligibility criteria. However, the retrospective design also represents a limitation of this study. Data were collected from the patients’ hospital records, with additional information unable to be collected; therefore, if not captured, data were recorded as missing for the purposes of analysis. In addition to information bias, retrospective studies may be associated with selection bias. In this study, the requirement of patients to have certain characteristics to qualify for study inclusion may have resulted in potential selection bias. Numbers of patients screened before exclusion were not available from the individual study sites, which may also have implications for selection bias.
Another potential limitation is that the requirement for patients to have had at least four consecutive IV doses of ceftaroline fosamil would have excluded some patients from the study. This requirement was included in the study protocol for alignment with the CAPTURE study. Additionally, prognostic scoring system data were unavailable for many patients and, while the patient CRF did include a section for ‘criteria for severe CAP’, a more detailed breakdown of severity criteria was not included, resulting in severity of CAP being attributed to physician judgment in these cases. Uncertainty of CAP severity in these patients thus represents a limitation of this analysis. However, sensitivity analyses conducted using ICU admission as an objective marker of severe CAP serve to at least partially mitigate this limitation. Finally, as healthcare costs differ between countries and healthcare systems, there are inherent limitations surrounding the aggregation of country-specific cost estimates. Nevertheless, the observations from this study provide information regarding economic impact of ceftaroline fosamil in a real-world setting across different geographical regions.
In summary, the results from this study provide real-world evidence of the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with CAP in usual care settings in Europe and Latin America. Clinical response rates were similar for both overall and severe CAP (albeit CAP severity being defined imperfectly) in this hospitalized patient population of whom most received empirical first-line ceftaroline fosamil. Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was also associated with shorter lengths of hospital and ICU stay compared with non-responders. These real-world data support previously reported clinical and real-world evaluations providing evidence of the feasibility of ceftaroline fosamil as an alternative treatment option to potentially improve empirical treatment success rates against a range of suspected causative CAP pathogens.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
An abstract summarizing interim results from this study was presented at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 9–12 July 2021. Final data were presented at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 23–26 April 2022.
Contributor Information
Alex Soriano, Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, CIBERINF, CIBER in Infectious Diseases, Barcelona, Spain.
Matteo Bassetti, Infectious Diseases, Clinica Malattie Infettive, Ospedale Policlinico IRCCS San Martino and University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Charalambos Gogos, Divison of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Tristan Ferry, Infectious Diseases Department, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Raul de Pablo, Department of Intensive Care, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
Wajeeha Ansari, Pfizer Biopharmaceuticals Group, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA.
Michal Kantecki, Global Medical Affaris, Pfizer, Paris, France.
Bernd Schweikert, Health Economics and Epidemiology, ICON plc, Munich, Germany.
Gustavo Luna, Health Economics and Epidemiology, ICON plc, Stockholm, Sweden.
Francesco Blasi, Respiratory Unit and Cystic Fibrosis Center, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milan, Italy; Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milan, Italy.
Funding
This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Medical writing support was provided by Melanie More, BSc, CMPP, of Prime Medica Ltd, Knutsford, Cheshire, UK, and was funded by Pfizer. The design and conduct of the study, as well as analysis of the study data and opinions, conclusions and interpretation of the data, are the responsibility of the authors.
Transparency declarations
W.A. and M.K. are employees of and shareholders in Pfizer. B.S. is an employee of ICON and G.L. is a former employee of ICON, who were paid consultants to Pfizer in connection with the development of manuscript. T.F., A.S., C.G., R.d.P., F.B. and M.B. received institutional research grant funding from Pfizer for the conduct of the study. F.B. reports grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Guidotti, Insmed, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Zambon and Vertex outside the submitted work.
Author contributions
Study concept and design: W.A., M.K., T.F., A.S., C.G., F.B., R.d.P. and M.B. Data analysis and interpretation: all authors. Critical review and revision of the manuscript: all authors. Final approval of the manuscript draft to be published: all authors.
Data availability
Upon request, and subject to certain criteria, conditions and exceptions (see https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information), Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data from Pfizer-sponsored global interventional clinical studies conducted for medicines, vaccines and medical devices (i) for indications that have been approved in the USA and/or EU, or (ii) in programmes that have been terminated (i.e. development for all indications has been discontinued). Pfizer will also consider requests for the protocol, data dictionary and statistical analysis plan. Data may be requested from Pfizer trials 24 months after study completion. The de-identified participant data will be made available to researchers whose proposals meet the research criteria and other conditions, and for which an exception does not apply, via a secure portal. To gain access, data requestors must enter into a data access agreement with Pfizer.
Supplementary data
Tables S1 to S5 are available as Supplementary data at JAC-AMR Online.
References
- 1. Rozenbaum MH, Mangen MJ, Huijts SM et al. Incidence, direct costs and duration of hospitalization of patients hospitalized with community acquired pneumonia: a nationwide retrospective claims database analysis. Vaccine 2015; 33: 3193–9. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Blasi F, Mantero M, Santus P et al. Understanding the burden of pneumococcal disease in adults. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 Suppl 5: 7–14. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03937.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Welte T, Torres A, Nathwani D. Clinical and economic burden of community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe. Thorax 2012; 67: 71–9. 10.1136/thx.2009.129502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Cillóniz C, Garcia-Vidal C, Ceccato A et al. Antimicrobial resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae. In: Fong IW, Schlaes D, Drlica K eds. Antimicrobial Resistance in the 21st Century, Springer, 2018; 13–38. 10.1007/978-3-319-78538-7_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Castanheira M, Gales AC, Mendes RE et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae in Latin America: results from five years of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004; 10: 645–51. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00872.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Grupo de trabajo de la Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT) . Update to the Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) recommendations on community acquired pneumonia. Arch Bronconeumol 2004; 40: 364–74. 10.1016/S1579-2129(06)60322-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Woodhead M. New guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections. Eur Respir J 2011; 38: 1250–1. 10.1183/09031936.00105211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Allergan . TEFLARO™ (ceftaroline fosamil) injection for intravenous (IV) use. 2021. https://www.allergan.com/assets/pdf/teflaro_pi.
- 9. Pfizer . Zinforo 600 mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion: summary of product characteristics. 2024. https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/product-information/zinforo-epar-product-information_en.pdf.
- 10. File TM Jr, Low DE, Eckburg PB et al. FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66 Suppl 3: iii19–32. 10.1093/jac/dkr096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Low DE, File TM Jr, Eckburg PB et al. FOCUS 2: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66 Suppl 3: iii33–44. 10.1093/jac/dkr097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ramani A, Udeani G, Evans J et al. Contemporary use of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: CAPTURE study experience. J Chemother 2014; 26: 229–34. 10.1179/1973947814Y.0000000184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Zhong NS, Sun T, Zhuo C et al. Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of Asian patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority with nested superiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2015; 15: 161–71. 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)71018-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH et al. CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 Suppl 4: iv41–51. 10.1093/jac/dkq254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Wilcox MH, Corey GR, Talbot GH et al. CANVAS 2: the second phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 Suppl 4: iv53–65. 10.1093/jac/dkq255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Dryden M, Zhang Y, Wilson D et al. A Phase III, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection with systemic inflammatory response or underlying comorbidities. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 3575–84. 10.1093/jac/dkw333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Riccobene TA, Carrothers TJ, Knebel W et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic target attainment in adult and pediatric patients following administration of ceftaroline fosamil as a 5-minute infusion. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 2021; 10: 420–7. 10.1002/cpdd.907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Taboada M, Melnick D, Iaconis JP et al. Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 862–70. 10.1093/jac/dkv415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Cristinacce A, Wright JG, Stone GG et al. A retrospective analysis of probability of target attainment in community-acquired pneumonia: ceftaroline fosamil versus comparators. Infect Dis Ther 2019; 8: 185–98. 10.1007/s40121-019-0243-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 200: e45–67. 10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44 Suppl 2: S27–72. 10.1086/511159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Martin-Loeches I, Torres A, Nagavci B et al. ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2023; 49: 615–32. 10.1007/s00134-023-07033-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Lim WS, Baudouin SV, George RC et al. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009. Thorax 2009; 64 Suppl 3: iii1–55. 10.1136/thx.2009.121434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Oster G, Berger A, Edelsberg J et al. Initial treatment failure in non-ICU community-acquired pneumonia: risk factors and association with length of stay, total hospital charges, and mortality. J Med Econ 2013; 16: 809–19. 10.3111/13696998.2013.794805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A et al. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50: 202–9. 10.1086/648678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Self WH, Wunderink RG, Williams DJ et al. Staphylococcus aureus community-acquired pneumonia: prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63: 300–9. 10.1093/cid/ciw300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ewig S, Torres A. Community-acquired pneumonia: Staphylococcus aureus. In: Marrie TJ, ed. Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Springer US, 2001; 475–85. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Ramírez JA. Worldwide perspective of the quality of care provided to hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia: results from the CAPO international cohort study. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 26: 543–52. 10.1055/s-2005-925521 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S et al. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections–full version. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17 Suppl 6: E1–E59. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03602.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ et al. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as an etiology of community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 1126–33. 10.1093/cid/cis022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Morgan AJ, Glossop AJ. Severe community-acquired pneumonia. BJA Educ 2016; 16: 167–72. 10.1093/bjaed/mkv052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. File TM Jr, Low DE, Eckburg PB et al. Integrated analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: randomized, doubled-blinded, multicenter phase 3 trials of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51: 1395–405. 10.1086/657313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Torres A, Kuraieva A, Stone GG et al. Systematic review of ceftaroline fosamil in the management of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Eur Respir Rev 2023; 32: 230117. 10.1183/16000617.0117-2023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63: e61–111. 10.1093/cid/ciw353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Forstner C, Patchev V, Rohde G et al. Rate and predictors of bacteremia in afebrile community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2020; 157: 529–39. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Lin SH, Lai CC, Tan CK et al. Outcomes of hospitalized patients with bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic community-acquired pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Epidemiol Infect 2011; 139: 1307–16. 10.1017/S0950268810002402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Torres A, Cillóniz C, Ferrer M et al. Bacteraemia and antibiotic-resistant pathogens in community acquired pneumonia: risk and prognosis. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1353–63. 10.1183/09031936.00152514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Kinzel A, Ambrogi M, Varshaver M et al. Tumor treating fields for glioblastoma treatment: patient satisfaction and compliance with the second-generation Optune® system. Clin Med Insights Oncol 2019; 13: 117955491882544. 10.1177/1179554918825449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Vazquez JA, Maggiore CR, Cole P et al. Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia secondary to acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin Pract (Baltim Md) 2015; 23: 39–43. 10.1097/IPC.0000000000000191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Karki A, Thurm C, Cervellione K. Experience with ceftaroline for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in a community hospital. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect 2017; 7: 300–2. 10.1080/20009666.2017.1374107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Toledo D, Soldevila N, Torner N et al. Factors associated with 30-day readmission after hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia in older patients: a cross-sectional study in seven Spanish regions. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e020243. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Golan Y, Ding M, Zhao Q et al. Ceftaroline fosamil (CPT-F) in bacteraemia associated with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). 24th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Barcelona, Spain, May 2014. ePoster number eP428.
- 43. Guervil DJ, Kaye KS, Hassoun A et al. Ceftaroline fosamil as first-line versus second-line treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). J Chemother 2016; 28: 180–6. 10.1179/1973947815Y.0000000010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Carreno JJ, Lodise TP. Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: from FOCUS to CAPTURE. Infect Dis Ther 2014; 3: 123–32. 10.1007/s40121-014-0036-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Huang X, Jandourek A, Cole P et al. Current use of ceftaroline for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) in US hospitals: length of stay and total cost from the CAPTURE study. Chest 2013; 144: 259A. 10.1378/chest.1704989 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Torres A, Bassetti M, Welte T et al. Economic analysis of ceftaroline fosamil for treating community-acquired pneumonia in Spain. J Med Econ 2020; 23: 148–55. 10.1080/13696998.2019.1688819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Huang XY, Lodise T, Friedland D et al. The economic impact of adding ceftaroline fosamil to hospital formulary for community acquired bacterial pneumonia: a hospital budget impact analysis in the United States. Value Health 2012; 15: PA238. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.1284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Upon request, and subject to certain criteria, conditions and exceptions (see https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information), Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data from Pfizer-sponsored global interventional clinical studies conducted for medicines, vaccines and medical devices (i) for indications that have been approved in the USA and/or EU, or (ii) in programmes that have been terminated (i.e. development for all indications has been discontinued). Pfizer will also consider requests for the protocol, data dictionary and statistical analysis plan. Data may be requested from Pfizer trials 24 months after study completion. The de-identified participant data will be made available to researchers whose proposals meet the research criteria and other conditions, and for which an exception does not apply, via a secure portal. To gain access, data requestors must enter into a data access agreement with Pfizer.