ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022
Efficacy and Safety of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Hospitalized Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia in China: Subset Analysis of an International Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01371838 (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), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 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
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- ASP-COMPLEX: redefining antimicrobial stewardship to improve outcomes in high-risk patients with severe infections.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeftaroline fosamil has demonstrated superior clinical efficacy versus ceftriaxone for hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in a Phase 3 trial in Asia and in a meta-analysis of three trials in Asia, North America, and Europe. Efficacy and safety outcomes for the subset of patients in China in the ASIA CAP trial were analyzed to determine if the same conclusions hold in the China subpopulation.
methodsHospitalized adults with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class III-IV CAP were randomized (1:1) to receive either intravenous ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 h or ceftriaxone 2 g every 24 h for 5-7 days. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at test-of-cure (TOC) in the clinically evaluable (CE) population. Secondary endpoints included microbiological responses and safety.
resultsOf 302 patients randomized in China, 205 were included in the CE population. Clinical cure rates at TOC were 80/105 (76.2%) for ceftaroline fosamil and 61/100 (61.0%) for ceftriaxone (difference 15.2%, 95% CI 2.5, 27.6), thereby meeting predefined non-inferiority and superiority criteria for the overall study. Subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint demonstrated consistency of favourable efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil across age groups, Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk classes and CURB-65 scores. Microbiological responses were presumed from clinical outcomes. Adverse events were consistent with the study treatments' known safety profiles.
conclusionThe China subset results are consistent with the overall study population, despite the smaller sample size. Ceftaroline fosamil was both non-inferior and superior to ceftriaxone for empiric treatment of Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe CAP.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01371838.
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.