ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2024
Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia: A Real-World Comparative Clinical Outcomes Study.
Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceftaroline for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Endovascular Infection.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- 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
- Evaluation of Ceftaroline Use in Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Case Series.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia results in substantial morbidity and mortality. As current treatments often lead to unsatisfactory outcomes, evidence guiding alternative treatment options is needed. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of MRSA bacteremia.
methodsThis retrospective study included adults hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia between 2011 and 2019. Patients were classified according to treatment with ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline), vancomycin, or daptomycin: Group 1, ceftaroline; Group 2, vancomycin or daptomycin (without ceftaroline); Group 3, combination therapy with ≥ 2 of these three agents. Clinical outcomes were compared using propensity-score-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models.
resultsOverall, 24,479 patients were included (Group 1, n = 532; Group 2, n = 21,555; Group 3, n = 2392). Mean age was 59.6, 60.8, and 57.4 years in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean post-index treatment length of stay was 8.8, 8.8, and 8.0 days, respectively. The most frequent line of therapy was ceftaroline first-line (42.1%), vancomycin or daptomycin first-line (95.4%), and combination therapy third-line or later (67.8%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Compared with Group 2, Groups 1 and 3 had similar favorable clinical responses {odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.44], p = 0.08; OR = 1.20 [95% CI 0.97-1.47], p = 0.09, respectively} and were less likely to switch treatment (both p < 0.001). Compared with Group 2, Group 1 was more likely to undergo 30-day all-cause readmission [OR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.80), p = 0.02], whereas this was less likely for Group 3 [OR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), p = 0.05].
conclusionsPatients receiving ceftaroline more often had favorable clinical responses than those receiving vancomycin or daptomycin monotherapy. In the absence of large-scale randomized controlled trials, these real-world data provide insights into the potential role of ceftaroline for treating MRSA bacteremia.
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.