Pertel Peter E, Bernardo Patricia, Fogarty Charles, Matthews Peter, Northland Rebeca, Benvenuto Mark, Thorne Grace M, Luperchio Steven A, Arbeit Robert D, Alder Jeff
Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421, USA.
Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Apr 15;46(8):1142-51. doi: 10.1086/533441.
We sought to compare daptomycin with ceftriaxone for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
Two phase-3 randomized, double-blind trials that enrolled adult patients hospitalized with CAP were conducted. Patients received intravenous daptomycin (4 mg/kg) or ceftriaxone (2 g) once daily for 5-14 days. Aztreonam could be added for patients with gram-negative infections. Clinical responses at the test-of-cure visit among patients in the intent-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations were the primary efficacy end points.
After combining data from the trials, the intent-to-treat population included 413 daptomycin-treated patients and 421 ceftriaxone-treated patients, and the clinically evaluable population included 369 daptomycin-treated patients and 371 ceftriaxone-treated patients. In the intent-to-treat population, the clinical cure rate among daptomycin-treated patients with CAP was 70.9%, compared with 77.4% among ceftriaxone-treated patients (95% confidence interval for the difference between cure rates, -12.4% to -0.6%). In the clinically evaluable population, the clinical cure rate was lower among daptomycin-treated patients (79.4%) than among ceftriaxone-treated patients (87.9%; 95% confidence interval for the difference between cure rates, -13.8% to -3.2%). A posthoc analysis revealed that, among those who had received up to 24 h of prior effective therapy, cure rates were similar among daptomycin-treated (90.7%) and ceftriaxone-treated patients (88.0%; 95% confidence interval for the difference between cure rates, -6.1% to 11.5%).
Daptomycin is not effective for the treatment of CAP, including infections caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. The observation that as little as 24 h of prior effective therapy may impact clinical outcome suggests that trials to evaluate CAP treatment may need to exclude patients who have received any potentially effective therapy before enrollment.
我们旨在比较达托霉素与头孢曲松治疗社区获得性肺炎(CAP)患者的疗效。
开展了两项纳入因CAP住院的成年患者的3期随机双盲试验。患者接受静脉注射达托霉素(4mg/kg)或头孢曲松(2g),每日1次,持续5 - 14天。对于革兰氏阴性菌感染患者可加用氨曲南。在意向性治疗人群和临床可评估人群中,治疗结束访视时的临床反应是主要疗效终点。
合并两项试验的数据后,意向性治疗人群包括413例接受达托霉素治疗的患者和421例接受头孢曲松治疗的患者,临床可评估人群包括369例接受达托霉素治疗的患者和371例接受头孢曲松治疗的患者。在意向性治疗人群中,接受达托霉素治疗的CAP患者临床治愈率为70.9%,而接受头孢曲松治疗的患者为77.4%(治愈率差异的95%置信区间为 - 12.4%至 - 0.6%)。在临床可评估人群中,接受达托霉素治疗的患者临床治愈率(79.4%)低于接受头孢曲松治疗的患者(87.9%;治愈率差异的95%置信区间为 - 13.8%至 - 3.2%)。一项事后分析显示,在那些接受过长达24小时先前有效治疗的患者中,接受达托霉素治疗的患者(90.7%)和接受头孢曲松治疗的患者治愈率相似(88.0%;治愈率差异的95%置信区间为 - 6.1%至11.5%)。
达托霉素对治疗CAP无效,包括由肺炎链球菌和金黄色葡萄球菌引起的感染。先前仅24小时的有效治疗可能影响临床结局这一观察结果表明,评估CAP治疗的试验可能需要排除入组前接受过任何潜在有效治疗的患者。