Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2015
Assessment of time to clinical response, a proxy for discharge readiness, among hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who received either ceftaroline fosamil or ceftriaxone in two phase III FOCUS trials.
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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Versus Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Adult Subjects With Community-Acquired Pneumonia
A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Versus Ceftriaxone, With Adjunctive Clarithromycin, in the Treatment of Adult Subjects With Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceftaroline.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2021Pooled it
- Traditional Chinese Medicine treatment with syndrome differentiation for patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2025Trial
- Ceftaroline in severe community-acquired pneumonia.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2022Review
- New cephalosporins for the treatment of pneumonia in internal medicine wards.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Post Hoc Assessment of Time to Clinical Response Among Adults Hospitalized with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Who Received Either Lefamulin or Moxifloxacin in 2 Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Clinical Trials.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
- 1g versus 2 g daily intravenous ceftriaxone in the treatment of community onset pneumonia - a propensity score analysis of data from a Japanese multicenter registry.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Observational
- Community acquired pneumonia among adult patients at an Egyptian university hospital: bacterial etiology, susceptibility profile and evaluation of the response to initial empiric antibiotic therapy.Infection and drug resistance · 2018Article
- Lessons learned from 2 decades of CAP therapy data: ways to improve patient management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
- Predictors and Implications of Early Clinical Stability in Patients Hospitalized for Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary driver of health care costs for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the hospital length of stay (LOS). Unfortunately, hospital LOS comparisons are difficult to make from phase III CAP trials because of their structured designs and prespecified treatment durations. However, an opportunity still exists to draw inferences about potential LOS differences between treatments through the use of surrogates for hospital discharge. The intent of this study was to quantify the time to a clinical response, a proxy for the time to discharge readiness, among hospitalized CAP patients who received either ceftaroline or ceftriaxone in two phase III CAP FOCUS clinical trials. On the basis of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and American Thoracic Society CAP management guidelines and recent FDA guidance documents for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a post hoc adjudication algorithm was constructed a priori to compare the time to a clinical response, a proxy for the time to discharge readiness, between patients who received ceftaroline or ceftriaxone. Overall, 1,116 patients (ceftaroline, n=562; ceftriaxone, n=554) from the pooled FOCUS trials met the selection criteria for this analysis. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that ceftaroline was associated with a shorter time, measured in days, to meeting the clinical response criteria (P=0.03). Of the patients on ceftaroline, 61.0, 76.1, and 83.6% achieved a clinical response by days 3, 4, and 5, compared to 54.3, 69.8, and 79.3% of the ceftriaxone-treated patients. In the Cox regression, ceftaroline was associated with a shorter time to a clinical response (HR, 1.16, P=0.02). The methodology employed here provides a framework to draw comparative effectiveness inferences from phase III CAP efficacy trials. (The FOCUS trials whose data were analyzed in this study have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00621504 and NCT00509106.).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.