ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2019
A Mini-Review on Ceftaroline in Bacteremia Patients with Methicillin-Resistant
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia: A Real-World Comparative Clinical Outcomes Study.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2024Article
- Comparative Study of the Difference in Behavior of the Accessory Gene Regulator (Agr) in USA300 and USA400 Community-Associated Methicillin-ResistantJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Acute osteoarticular infections in children are frequently forgotten multidiscipline emergencies: beyond the technical skills.EFORT open reviews · 2021Review
- Microbiological Air Quality and Drug Resistance in Airborne Bacteria Isolated from a Waste Sorting Plant Located in Poland-A Case Study.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Occurrence of multidrug-resistant methicillin-resistantInternational journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this review is to describe the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline in the non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication of methicillin-resistant DATA SOURCES: A systematic overview was conducted by searching PubMed, Medline, and The Cochrane Library up to January 2019. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language clinical trials and case reports related to the efficacy of ceftaroline in new, not-yet-approved FDA indications in MRSA infections in pediatric or adult populations. DATA SYNTHESIS: In the case of MRSA bacteremia (MRSAB) infections, three different randomized studies in pediatric patients showed effectiveness of ceftaroline. When used in the case of adult populations with MRSA bacteremia, a small trial of 16 patients showed 50% clinical success in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections versus 63% clinical success in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Another case series of six refractory case reports showed 50% clinical success of ceftaroline in patients with MRSA.
conclusionsAlthough there are few case reports and limited data to date, ceftaroline fosamil should continue to be studied as an alternative therapy in MRSA infections in both pediatric and adult populations. Clinical success rates of ceftaroline were, in most cases, considered high when treating patients with MRSA infection. More clinical trials need to be studied. In the specific case of MRSA bacteremia, the treatment options remain few and ceftaroline should be extensively studied for the salvage treatment of MRSAB.
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.