Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30791894›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2019

Use of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Osteomyelitis: CAPTURE Study Experience.

Leonard B Johnson, Ananthakrishnan Ramani, David J Guervil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Role of Novel Antibiotics in the Management of Diabetic Foot Infection.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2023
    Review
  5. New Approaches to Manage Infections in Transplant Recipients: Report From the 2023 GTI (Infection and Transplantation Group) Annual Meeting.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Vertebral osteomyelitis in an adolescent girl.SAGE open medical case reports · 2020
    Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Leonard B JohnsonAscension St. John Hospital and Medical Center and Wayne State University School of Medicine, 19251 Mack Avenue, Suite 340, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI, 48236, USA. Leonard.Johnson@ascension.org.
Ananthakrishnan RamaniColumbia Memorial Hospital, Hudson, NY, USA.
David J GuervilMemorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteomyelitis is often challenging to treat. This analysis examined the clinical experience of patients with gram-positive osteomyelitis treated with ceftaroline fosamil in the phase 4 Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro® Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) study.

methodsData including patient demographics, past illnesses, risk factors, disease characteristics, antibiotic use, pathogens isolated, and clinical outcome were collected between September 2013 and February 2015 by review of randomly ordered patient charts from participating sites in the United States. Clinical success was defined as discontinuation of ceftaroline fosamil following clinical cure with no further need for antibiotics or clinical improvement with switch to another antibiotic treatment.

resultsA total of 150 patients with gram-positive osteomyelitis were treated with ceftaroline fosamil. Most patients (117/150; 78.0%) were treated with 600 mg ceftaroline fosamil per dose; 143/150 patients (95.3%) received a dose every 12 h. The majority (89/150 patients; 59.3%) had been previously diagnosed with diabetes mellitus or peripheral arterial disease. Osteomyelitis was associated with hardware in 32/150 patients (21.3%). Methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; MSSA) were the most commonly isolated pathogens, observed in 93/150 (62.0%) and 21/150 (14.0%) patients, respectively. Clinical success with ceftaroline fosamil therapy was observed in 139/150 (92.7%) patients overall, 81/89 (91.0%) patients with diabetes or peripheral arterial disease, and 18/20 (90.0%) patients who had hardware implanted before ceftaroline fosamil therapy (none had hardware removed during therapy). Patients who received prior antibiotic therapy or ceftaroline fosamil as monotherapy experienced clinical success rates of 93.9% (107/114) and 91% (91/100), respectively. Among patients who received concurrent antibiotic therapy, the clinical success rate was 96.0% (48/50). Patients who were infected with MRSA or MSSA had clinical success rates of 92.5% (86/93) and 100% (21/21), respectively. A total of 2/150 (1.3%) patients discontinued ceftaroline fosamil therapy because of adverse events.

conclusionsClinical success rates with ceftaroline fosamil were high in patients with gram-positive osteomyelitis, including those with diabetes or peripheral arterial disease and those with MRSA or MSSA.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsFemaleHumansMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicOsteomyelitisRegistriesRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftarolineCephalosporinsCeftaroline fosamilGram-positive osteomyelitisOff-label therapyParenteral antibiotics

Identifiers

PMID30791894
PMCPMC6385445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.