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
Matthew Dryden, Yingyuan Zhang, David Wilson, Joseph P Iaconis, Jesus Gonzalez, Matthew Dryden, Yingyuan Zhang, David Wilson, Joseph P Iaconis, Jesus Gonzalez
Abstract
Objectives: Increasing the ceftaroline fosamil dose beyond 600 mg every 12 h may provide additional benefit for patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) with severe inflammation and/or reduced pathogen susceptibility. A Phase III multicentre, randomized trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h in this setting.
Methods: Adult patients with cSSTI and systemic inflammation or comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g every 8 h) for 5-14 days. Clinical cure was assessed at the test of cure (TOC) visit (8-15 days after the final dose) in the modified ITT (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower limit of the 95% CI around the treatment difference greater than -10%. An MRSA-focused expansion period was initiated after completion of the main study. Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers NCT01499277 and NCT02202135.
Results: Clinical cure rates at TOC demonstrated non-inferiority of ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in the MITT and CE populations: 396/506 (78.3%) versus 202/255 (79.2%) patients (difference -1.0%, 95% CI -6.9, 5.4) and 342/395 (86.6%) versus 180/211 (85.3%) patients (difference 1.3%, 95% CI -4.3, 7.5), respectively. In the expansion period, 3/4 (75%) patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil were cured at TOC. The frequency of adverse events was similar between groups.
Conclusions: Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 8 h was effective for cSSTI patients with evidence of systemic inflammation and/or comorbidities. No new safety signals were identified.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Figures
References
- Edelsberg J, Taneja C, Zervos M et al. . Trends in US hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15: 1516–8.
- 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–iv51.
- 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–iv65.
- Eckmann C, Dryden M. Treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by resistant bacteria: value of linezolid, tigecycline, daptomycin and vancomycin. Eur J Med Res 2010; 15: 554–63.
- AstraZeneca AB. Zinforo 600 mg Powder for Concentrate for Solution for Infusion. Summary of Product Characteristics. .
- Corey GR, Wilcox M, Talbot GH et al. . Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51: 641–50.
- Corrado ML. Integrated safety summary of CANVAS 1 and 2 trials: Phase III, randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 Suppl 4: iv67–iv71.
- Flamm RK, Sader HS, Jones RN. Ceftaroline activity tested against contemporary Latin American bacterial pathogens (2011). Braz J Infect Dis 2014; 18: 187–95.
- Flamm RK, Jones RN, Sader HS. In vitro activity of ceftaroline tested against isolates from the Asia-Pacific region and South Africa (2011). J Global Antimicrob Resist 2014; 2: 183–9.
- Castanheira M, Jones RN, Sader HS. Activity of ceftaroline and comparator agents tested against contemporary Gram-positive and -negative (2011) isolates collected in Europe, Turkey, and Israel. J Chemother 2014; 26: 202–10.
- Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Twenty-Third Informational Supplement M100-S23. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2013.
- The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. Version 5.0, 2015 .
- Pinder M, Bellomo R, Lipman J. Pharmacological principles of antibiotic prescription in the critically ill. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30: 134–44.
- Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH et al. . Manual of Clinical Microbiology. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2007.
- Levine NS, Lindberg RB, Mason AD Jr et al. . The quantitative swab culture and smear: a quick, simple method for determining the number of viable aerobic bacteria on open wounds. J Trauma 1976; 16: 89–94.
- Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically—Ninth Edition: Approved Standard M07-A9. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2012.
- Miettinen O, Nurminen M. Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985; 4: 213–26.
- Swanbeck G, Dahlberg E. Cutaneous drug reactions. An attempt to quantitative estimation. Arch Dermatol Res 1992; 284: 215–8.
- Yang L, Sunzel M, Xu P et al. . Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and safety of single and multiple ceftaroline fosamil infusions in healthy Chinese and Western subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2015; 53: 681–91.
- Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Schmitz FJ et al. . Survey of infections due to Staphylococcus species: frequency of occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates collected in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, and the Western Pacific region for the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997-1999. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32 Suppl 2: S114–S32.
- Moet GJ, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ et al. . Contemporary causes of skin and soft tissue infections in North America, Latin America, and Europe: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1998-2004). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 57: 7–13.
- Corey R, Wilcox M, Gonzalez J et al. . Ceftaroline fosamil (CPT-F) in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) with systemic inflammatory signs: results across 3 pivotal studies using q8h or q12h. In: Abstracts of the Fifty-fifth Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, CA, USA, 2015. p. L-839. American Society for Microbiology.
- Reiszner E, Ambler J, Iaconis J. Ceftaroline in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: in vitro susceptibility of baseline pathogens isolated in a Phase III randomised clinical trial. In: Abstracts of the Twenty-fifth European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infection. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. p. EV0128. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
- Zhou D, Dryden M, Gonzalez J et al. . Impact of disease severity on ceftaroline pharmacokinetics (PK) in patients with ABSSSI: Phase III COVERS trial. In: Abstracts of the Fifty-fifth Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, CA, USA, 2015. p. A-966. American Society for Microbiology.
- Iaconis J, Critchley I, Zhou D et al. . Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12h (every 12 h ) can provide adequate exposure against Staphylococcus aureus with ceftaroline MICs ≤2mg/L in ABSSSI. In: Abstracts of the Fifty-fifth Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Diego, CA, USA, 2015. p. A-456. American Society for Microbiology.
- Das S, Li J, Gonzalez J et al. . Ceftaroline fosamil 600mg every 8h for the treatment of ABSSSI due to Staphylococcus aureus with ceftaroline MICs of 4 mg/L. In: Abstracts of the Fifty-fifth Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Diego, CA, USA, 2015. p. A-455. American Society for Microbiology.
- Rank DR, Friedland HD, Laudano JB. Integrated safety summary of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials: Phase III randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66 Suppl 3: iii53–iii9.
- 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.
- Dona I, Barrionuevo E, Blanca-Lopez N et al. . Trends in hypersensitivity drug reactions: more drugs, more response patterns, more heterogeneity. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2014; 24: 143–53.
- Rodriguez-Pena R, Antunez C, Martin E et al. . Allergic reactions to β-lactams. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2006; 5: 31–48.
- Thong BY, Tan TC. Epidemiology and risk factors for drug allergy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 71: 684–700.
- Andes DR, Craig WA. Cephalosporins. In: Mandell GL, ed. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc, 2005; 294–311.
- Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation Research. Guidance for Industry. Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment. 2013. .
Source: PubMed