Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25367904›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2015

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis for efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Sujata M Bhavnani, Jeffrey P Hammel, Scott A Van Wart, Christopher M Rubino, Daniel K Reynolds, Alan Forrest, George L Drusano, Tatiana Khariton, H David Friedland, Todd A Riccobene and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sujata M BhavnaniInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA SBhavnani@icpd.com.
Jeffrey P HammelInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Scott A Van WartInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Christopher M RubinoInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Daniel K ReynoldsInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Alan ForrestInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
George L DrusanoInstitute for Therapeutic Innovation, University of Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Tatiana KharitonForest Research Institute, Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey, USA.
H David FriedlandCerexa, Inc., Oakland, California, USA.
Todd A RiccobeneForest Research Institute, Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey, USA.
Paul G AmbroseInstitute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Latham, New York, USA.
Institute for Clinical Pharmacodynamics (United States) · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ceftaroline is a cephalosporin with broad-spectrum in vitro activity against pathogens commonly associated with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of ceftaroline, is approved for the treatment of patients with ABSSSI. Using data from the microbiologically evaluable population from two phase 2 and two phase 3 randomized, multicenter, double-blind studies of patients with ABSSSI, an analysis examining the relationship between drug exposure, as measured by the percentage of time during the dosing interval that free-drug steady-state concentrations remain above the MIC (f%T>MIC), and clinical and microbiological responses was undertaken. The analysis population included 526 patients, of whom 423 had infections associated with S. aureus. Clinical and microbiological success percentages were 94.7 and 94.5%, respectively, among all of the patients and 95.3 and 95.7%, respectively, among those with S. aureus infections. Univariable analysis based on data from all of the patients and those with S. aureus infections demonstrated significant relationships between f%T>MIC and microbiological response (P < 0.001 and P = 0.026, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated other patient factors in addition to f%T>MIC to be significant predictors of microbiological response, including age and infection type for all of the patients evaluated and age, infection type, and the presence of diabetes mellitus for patients with S. aureus infections. Results of these analyses confirm that a ceftaroline fosamil dosing regimen of 600 mg every 12 h provides exposures associated with the upper plateau of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for efficacy.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsFemaleHumansMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedSkinStaphylococcal Skin InfectionsTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID25367904
PMCPMC4291374
OpenAlexW2053980008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.