Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy, Rootstown, OH, USA.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011 Apr;66 Suppl 3:iii19-32. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkr096.
Ceftaroline, the active form of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil, is a novel cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against important pathogens associated with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae and common Gram-negative pathogens. FOCUS 1 is a randomized, double-blinded, Phase III study that was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in treating patients with CAP. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority [lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) ≥ -10%] in clinical cure rates achieved with ceftaroline fosamil compared with those achieved with ceftriaxone in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat efficacy (MITTE) populations.
Patients hospitalized in a non-intensive care unit setting with CAP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV requiring intravenous (iv) therapy were randomized (1:1) to receive 600 mg of ceftaroline fosamil iv every 12 h or 1 g of ceftriaxone iv every 24 h. Patients also received two 500 mg doses of oral clarithromycin every 12 h administered on day 1. Clinical cure, microbiological response, adverse events (AEs) and laboratory tests were assessed. FOCUS 1 registration number NCT00621504 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00621504).
Of 613 enrolled patients, 298 received ceftaroline fosamil and 308 received ceftriaxone. Baseline characteristics between treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were as follows: CE population, 86.6% (194/224) for ceftaroline fosamil and 78.2% (183/234) for ceftriaxone [difference (95% CI), 8.4% (1.4, 15.4)]; and MITTE population, 83.8% (244/291) for ceftaroline fosamil and 77.7% (233/300) for ceftriaxone [difference (95% CI), 6.2% (-0.2, 12.6)]. Clinical cure rates for CAP caused by S. pneumoniae in the microbiological MITTE population were 88.9% (24/27) and 66.7% (20/30) for ceftaroline fosamil and ceftriaxone, respectively. Both agents were well tolerated, with similar rates of AEs, serious AEs, deaths and discontinuations because of an AE. The most common AEs for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients were diarrhoea, headache, insomnia and nausea, and the most common AEs for ceftriaxone-treated patients were hypokalaemia, hypertension, nausea and diarrhoea.
Ceftaroline fosamil demonstrated high clinical cure and microbiological response rates in hospitalized patients with CAP of PORT risk class III or IV. Ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of ceftriaxone and consistent with the cephalosporin class. In this study, ceftaroline fosamil was an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for CAP.
头孢洛林是前体药物头孢洛林磷酸酯的活性形式,是一种新型头孢菌素,对社区获得性肺炎(CAP)相关的重要病原体具有杀菌作用,包括肺炎链球菌和常见的革兰氏阴性病原体。FOCUS 1 是一项随机、双盲、III 期研究,旨在评估头孢洛林磷酸酯治疗 CAP 患者的疗效和安全性。主要目的是确定头孢洛林磷酸酯在临床治愈率方面不劣于头孢曲松[下限 95%置信区间(CI)≥-10%],在临床可评估(CE)和改良意向治疗疗效(MITTE)人群中。
患有肺炎结局研究小组(PORT)风险等级 III 或 IV 的 CAP 且需要静脉(iv)治疗的非重症监护病房患者随机(1:1)接受 600mg 头孢洛林磷酸酯 iv 每 12 小时或 1g 头孢曲松 iv 每 24 小时。患者还在第 1 天接受 2 次 500mg 克拉霉素口服,每 12 小时一次。评估临床治愈率、微生物学反应、不良事件(AE)和实验室检查。FOCUS 1 注册号 NCT00621504(http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00621504)。
在 613 名入组患者中,298 名接受了头孢洛林磷酸酯治疗,308 名接受了头孢曲松治疗。治疗组之间的基线特征相当。临床治愈率如下:CE 人群,头孢洛林磷酸酯为 86.6%(194/224),头孢曲松为 78.2%(183/234)[差异(95%CI),8.4%(1.4,15.4)];和 MITTE 人群,头孢洛林磷酸酯为 83.8%(244/291),头孢曲松为 77.7%(233/300)[差异(95%CI),6.2%(-0.2,12.6)]。在微生物学 MITTE 人群中,由肺炎链球菌引起的 CAP 的临床治愈率分别为头孢洛林磷酸酯 88.9%(24/27)和头孢曲松 66.7%(20/30)。两种药物均耐受良好,AE、严重 AE、死亡和因 AE 而停药的发生率相似。头孢洛林磷酸酯治疗患者最常见的 AE 为腹泻、头痛、失眠和恶心,头孢曲松治疗患者最常见的 AE 为低钾血症、高血压、恶心和腹泻。
头孢洛林磷酸酯在 PORT 风险等级 III 或 IV 的住院 CAP 患者中显示出较高的临床治愈率和微生物学反应率。头孢洛林磷酸酯耐受性良好,安全性与头孢曲松相似,与头孢菌素类一致。在这项研究中,头孢洛林磷酸酯是治疗 CAP 的一种有效且耐受良好的治疗选择。