Literature DB >> 22230331

A randomised, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with ceftriaxone with or without linezolid for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalisation.

Susan C Nicholson1, Tobias Welte, Thomas M File, Richard S Strauss, Bart Michiels, Pratibha Kaul, Dainius Balis, Deborah Arbit, Karen Amsler, Gary J Noel.   

Abstract

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a serious infection requiring hospitalisation in 20% of cases. The novel cephalosporin ceftobiprole has microbiological activity against the major bacterial pathogens causing CAP, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Klebsiella pneumoniae, as well as against Staphylococcus aureus, including meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This was a multicentre, double-blind study in which 706 patients with CAP severe enough to require hospitalisation were randomised to ceftobiprole or to an expert-recommended course of ceftriaxone ± linezolid (comparator group). Clinical and microbiological outcomes were determined 7-14 days after completion of therapy (test-of-cure visit). For the 469 clinically evaluable patients, cure rates were 86.6% vs. 87.4% for ceftobiprole and comparator, respectively [95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference, -6.9% to 5.3%]; in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of 638 CAP patients, these cure rates were 76.4% vs. 79.3%, respectively (95% CI of the difference, -9.3% to 3.6%). A typical bacterial pathogen was identified in 29% of the ITT population. Microbiological eradication rates in the 144 microbiologically evaluable patients were 88.2% and 90.8% for the respective treatment groups (95% CI of the difference, -12.6% to 7.5%). Both study drugs were well tolerated, with but a minority of patients requiring premature discontinuation due to an adverse event (6% in the ceftobiprole group and 4% in the comparator group). The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events was higher in the ceftobiprole group, primarily owing to differences in rates of self-limited nausea (7% vs. 2%) and vomiting (5% vs. 2%). In summary, ceftobiprole was non-inferior to the comparator (ceftriaxone ± linezolid) in all clinical and microbiological analyses conducted, suggesting that ceftobiprole has a potential role in treating hospitalised patients with CAP. [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00326287].
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22230331     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents        ISSN: 0924-8579            Impact factor:   5.283


  35 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Assessment of bias in outcomes reported in trials on pneumonia: a systematic review.

Authors:  T Avni; S Shiber-Ofer; L Leibovici; M Paul
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 3.  Ceftobiprole medocaril: a review of its use in patients with hospital- or community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  Yahiya Y Syed
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 4.  Managing community acquired pneumonia in the elderly - the next generation of pharmacotherapy on the horizon.

Authors:  B Amalakuhan; K L Echevarria; M I Restrepo
Journal:  Expert Opin Pharmacother       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.889

5.  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

6.  Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of cefazolin and ceftriaxone.

Authors:  S A Winans; A M Luce; R Hasbun
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2013-05-19       Impact factor: 3.553

7.  A phase 3 randomized double-blind comparison of ceftobiprole medocaril versus ceftazidime plus linezolid for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  Samir S Awad; Alejandro H Rodriguez; Yin-Ching Chuang; Zsuszanna Marjanek; Alex J Pareigis; Gilmar Reis; Thomas W L Scheeren; Alejandro S Sánchez; Xin Zhou; Mikaël Saulay; Marc Engelhardt
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 9.079

8.  Ceftobiprole Activity against Gram-Positive and -Negative Pathogens Collected from the United States in 2006 and 2016.

Authors:  Michael A Pfaller; Robert K Flamm; Rodrigo E Mendes; Jennifer M Streit; Jennifer I Smart; Kamal A Hamed; Leonard R Duncan; Helio S Sader
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 9.  Ceftobiprole for the treatment of pneumonia: a European perspective.

Authors:  Adamantia Liapikou; Catia Cillóniz; Antonio Torres
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 4.162

10.  Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of single- and multiple-dose intravenous ceftobiprole in healthy Chinese participants.

Authors:  Wan-Zhen Li; Hai-Lan Wu; Yuan-Cheng Chen; Bei-Ning Guo; Xiao-Fen Liu; Yu Wang; Ju-Fang Wu; Jing Zhang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.