Literature DB >> 18225981

A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections.

Gary J Noel1, Karen Bush, Partha Bagchi, Juliana Ianus, Richard S Strauss.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections due to either gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria was conducted to compare ceftobiprole monotherapy with treatment with vancomycin plus ceftazidime.
METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ceftobiprole or to receive vancomycin plus ceftazidime. Outcomes were determined at a test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after completion of therapy) and were analyzed for all patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections, as well as for subgroups, on the basis of major types of infections and severity of disease.
RESULTS: Among the clinically evaluable and the intent-to-treat populations, clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were similar in the ceftobiprole and comparator treatment arms (clinical cure rate, 90.5% [439 of 485 patients] and 90.2% [220 of 244 patients] in the clinically evaluable population, respectively; 81.9% [448 of 547 patients] and 80.8% [227 of 281 patients] in the intent-to-treat population, respectively). Clinical cure rates in ceftobiprole-treated patients ranged from 86.2% (125 of 145 patients) among those with diabetes who had foot infections to 93.0% (80 of 86 patients) among those with cellulitis. Among patients treated with ceftobiprole, clinical cure rates were similar among patients from whom gram-negative bacteria were isolated (87.9% [109 of 124 patients]) and among patients from whom gram-positive bacteria were isolated (91.8% [292 of 318 patients]) and were not statistically different from the clinical cure rates among comparator-treated patients (89.7% [61 of 68 patients] and 90.3% [149 of 165 patients], respectively). Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events in the 2 treatment groups were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole monotherapy is as effective as vancomycin plus ceftazidime for treating patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections and infections due to gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18225981     DOI: 10.1086/526527

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Infect Dis        ISSN: 1058-4838            Impact factor:   9.079


  57 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with gram-positive infections: focus on the study design.

Authors:  Konstantinos Z Vardakas; Michael N Mavros; Nikolaos Roussos; Matthew E Falagas
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  Ceftobiprole associated agranulocytosis after drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms induced by vancomycin and rifampicin.

Authors:  Thomas Wendland; Barbara Daubner; Werner J Pichler
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  MRSA: treating people with infection.

Authors:  Nikolas Rae; Anna Jarchow-MacDonald; Dilip Nathwani; Charis Ann Marwick
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2016-02-16

Review 4.  Development of novel antibacterial drugs to combat multiple resistant organisms.

Authors:  Matteo Bassetti; Elda Righi
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 5.  Molecular basis and phenotype of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and insights into new beta-lactams that meet the challenge.

Authors:  Leticia I Llarrull; Jed F Fisher; Shahriar Mobashery
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Ceftobiprole activity against over 60,000 clinical bacterial pathogens isolated in Europe, Turkey, and Israel from 2005 to 2010.

Authors:  David J Farrell; Robert K Flamm; Helio S Sader; Ronald N Jones
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Population pharmacokinetic analysis of ceftobiprole for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections.

Authors:  Holly Kimko; Bindu Murthy; Xu Xu; Partha Nandy; Richard Strauss; Gary J Noel
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 8.  MRSA and diabetic foot wounds: contaminating or infecting organisms?

Authors:  Frank L Bowling; Edward B Jude; Andrew J M Boulton
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.810

Review 9.  Newer antibacterial drugs for a new century.

Authors:  Gina Devasahayam; William M Scheld; Paul S Hoffman
Journal:  Expert Opin Investig Drugs       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 6.206

10.  From ulcer to infection: an update on clinical practice and adjunctive treatments of diabetic foot ulcers.

Authors:  C Abad; N Safdar
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.725

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.