Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30597021›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2019

Summary of the safety and tolerability of two treatment regimens of ceftaroline fosamil: 600 mg every 8 h versus 600 mg every 12 h.

Karen Cheng, Rienk Pypstra, Jean Li Yan, Jennifer Hammond

6 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 6 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT00423657 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in Adult Subjects With Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infection (cSSSI)

TypeinterventionalSponsorForest LaboratoriesRan2007 to 2007Enrolled680ConditionsBacterial InfectionsArmsceftaroline, vancomycin plus aztreonam, Placebo
NCT00424190 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in Adult Subjects With Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infection

TypeinterventionalSponsorForest LaboratoriesRan2007 to 2007Enrolled698ConditionsBacterial InfectionsArmsIV Vancomycin plus IV Aztreonam, Ceftaroline
NCT00509106 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorForest LaboratoriesRan2007 to 2009Enrolled622ConditionsBacterial PneumoniaArmsCeftaroline fosamil for Injection, Ceftriaxone, Placebo
NCT00621504 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorForest LaboratoriesRan2008 to 2009Enrolled606ConditionsBacterial PneumoniaArmsCeftaroline fosamil for Injection, IV Ceftriaxone, Placebo, Clarithromycin
NCT01371838 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase III, Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Ceftaroline Versus Intravenous Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Adult Hospitalised Patients With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia in Asia

TypeinterventionalSponsorPfizerRan2011 to 2013Enrolled848ConditionsCommunity-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia, Lung Infection of Individual Not Recently HospitalizedArmsCeftaroline, Ceftriaxone
NCT01499277 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase III, Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Ceftaroline Fosamil (600 mg Every 8 Hours) Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam in the Treatment of Patients With Complicated Bacterial Skin and Soft Tissue Infections With Evidence of Systemic Inflammatory Response or Underlying Comorbidities

TypeinterventionalSponsorPfizerRan2012 to 2015Enrolled802ConditionsComplicated Skin and Soft Tissue InfectionArmsCeftaroline fosamil, Vancomycin, Aztreonam
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Ceftaroline fosamil: clinical experience after 23-month prescription in a tertiary hospital.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2021
    Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Karen ChengPfizer, Sandwich, UK.
Rienk PypstraPfizer, New York, NY, USA.
Jean Li YanPfizer, New York, NY, USA.
Jennifer HammondPfizer, Collegeville, PA, USA.
Pfizer (United States) · USPfizer (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recommended adult dose of ceftaroline fosamil is 600 mg q12h by 1 h intravenous (iv) infusion for 5-14 days in complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) and 5-7 days in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). A dosage of 600 mg q8h by 2 h iv infusion is approved in some regions for cSSTI patients with Staphylococcus aureus infection where the ceftaroline MIC is 2 or 4 mg/L. This analysis compares the safety profiles of the q8h and q12h regimens.

methodsSafety data from six Phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trials were collated into the q8h cSSTI pool (ceftaroline fosamil n = 506; NCT01499277) and the q12h pool {ceftaroline fosamil n = 1686; comprising five studies [two cSSTI (NCT00424190 and NCT00423657) and three CAP (NCT01371838, NCT00621504 and NCT00509106)]}.

resultsThe pattern and incidence of adverse events were similar between the q8h and q12h ceftaroline fosamil pools. Most were gastrointestinal and of mild or moderate intensity. Overall, rash intensity was similar between the q8h pool and the q12h pool. For the q8h regimen, there was a higher frequency of rash in some Asian study sites, associated with longer duration of therapy (≥7 days); most cases were mild and resolved following treatment discontinuation. No dose-related vital sign or ECG abnormalities were detected with either regimen.

conclusionsThe q8h regimen in cSSTI was generally well tolerated; the observed safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of ceftaroline fosamil, reflective of the cephalosporin class and qualitatively consistent with the q12h regimen.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID30597021
PMCPMC6419614
OpenAlexW2907755992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.