Search

Tristan Ferry,1 Charalambos Gogos,2 Alex Soriano,3 Francesco Blasi,4,5 Wajeeha Ansari,6 Michal Kantecki,7 Bernd Schweikert,8 Gustavo Luna,9 Matteo Bassetti10 1Infectious Diseases Department, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; 2Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece; 3Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, CIBERINF, CIBER in Infectious Diseases, Barcelona, Spain; 4Respiratory Unit and Cystic Fibrosis Center, Foundation IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 5Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 6Pfizer Biopharmaceuticals Group, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA; 7Global Medical Affairs, Pfizer International Operations, Pfizer, Paris, France; 8Health Economics and Epidemiology, ICON plc, Munich, Germany; 9Health Economics and Epidemiology, ICON plc, Stockholm, Sweden; 10Infectious Diseases, Clinica Malattie Infettive, Ospedale Policlinico IRCCS San Martino and University of Genoa, Genoa, ItalyCorrespondence: Wajeeha Ansari, Pfizer Inc., 66 Hudson Blvd E, New York, NY, 10001, USA, Email wajeeha.ansari@pfizer.comBackground: Ceftaroline fosamil is approved for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); however, data on its real-world use and effectiveness in Europe and Latin America are currently limited. This retrospective observational study assessed ceftaroline fosamil use and treatment outcomes in adults hospitalized with cSSTI or CAP treated with ceftaroline fosamil in a usual care setting in Europe and Latin America. Results for patients with cSSTI are reported.Methods: Data from patients with cSSTI who received ≥ 4 consecutive intravenous ceftaroline fosamil doses up to May 31, 2019, were collected from sites in Brazil, Colombia, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Patient characteristics, clinical management, hospitalization information, microbiological diagnosis, and clinical responses were summarized descriptively. Healthcare resource use variables were evaluated by clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil.Results: Data for 132 patients were included (58.3% male; mean age 58.5 years). Most common lesions were cellulitis/fasciitis (62.1%), abscess (34.1%), and post-surgical wounds (19.7%). Pathogens most frequently identified were methicillin-resistant (18.2%) and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (17.4%). Median (range) ceftaroline fosamil treatment duration was 8 (2– 60) days (daily doses of 1200 [400– 2400] mg); 78 patients (59.1%) received monotherapy. In total, 75 (56.8%) patients had additional antibiotics after ceftaroline fosamil. Clinical response occurred in 118 (89.4%) patients. All-cause 30-day readmission occurred in 13 (9.8%) patients, and all-cause 30-day mortality in 7 (5.3%). Clinical response to ceftaroline was associated with > 25% shorter length of hospital and intensive care stay, and with ~40% lower hospital costs, versus non-responders.Conclusion: Ceftaroline fosamil was effective in treating adults with cSSTI and clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use compared with non-responders, in Europe and Latin America.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04198571.Keywords: antibiotics, real-world evidence, efficacy, healthcare resource use

Antoni Torres,1 Alex Soriano,2 Simone Rivolo,3 Edit Remak,4 Carmen Peral,5 Michal Kantecki,6 Wajeeha Ansari,7 Claudie Charbonneau,8 Jennifer Hammond,9 Santiago Grau,10 Mark Wilcox11 1Servei de Pneumologia Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, IDIPAPS, CIBERES, ICREA, Barcelona, Spain; 2Hospital Clínic of Barcelona,University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain; 3Modeling and Simulation, Evidera, London, UK; 4Formerly Modeling and Simulation, Evidera, Budapest, Hungary; 5Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer, Madrid, Spain; 6Global Medical Affairs, Pfizer, Paris, France; 7Patient & Health Impact, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA; 8Patient & Health Impact, Pfizer, Paris, France; 9Global Product Development, Pfizer, Collegeville, PA, USA; 10Hospital del Mar,Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; 11University of Leeds, Leeds, UKCorrespondence: Wajeeha Ansari, Tel +1 212 733 5001, Email wajeeha.ansari@pfizer.comPurpose: Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.Patients and Methods: The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.Results: CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49– 30.2%) with average total cost per patient of € 6763 (€ 6268–€ 7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34– 27.09%), 26.4% (20.5– 32.32%), 28.6% (22.08– 35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39– 33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of € 6,619 (€ 5,902–€ 6,929), € 6,394 (€ 5,881–€ 6,904), € 6,855 (€ 5,800–€ 7,410) and € 7,173 (€ 6,608–€ 7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.Conclusion: Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.Keywords: complicated skin and soft tissue infection, cost-consequences, Spain, ceftaroline fosamil

Background: This multicentre, observational, retrospective chart review study assessed ceftaroline fosamil treatment patterns and outcomes in adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in usual care settings., Methods: Anonymized patient data were extracted from hospital records of adults with CAP who received ≥4 consecutive IV ceftaroline fosamil doses at sites in Brazil, Colombia, France, Greece, Italy, Russia and Spain., Results: The dataset included 185 patients (58.9% male; mean age 62.2 years), of whom 128 (69.2%) had severe CAP defined by CURB-65, PSI/PORT score or physician judgement. Streptococcus pneumoniae ( n  = 44; 23.8%) and Staphylococcus aureus [MSSA ( n  = 15) and MRSA ( n  = 14)] were the most frequently identified pathogens. Clinical response occurred in 151 (81.6%) patients overall, and in 104 (81.3%) severe CAP patients. Response within ≤4 and >4 days occurred in 79 (42.7%) and 62 (33.5%) patients (unknown, n  = 10), respectively. Twenty (10.8%) patients required readmission within 30 days. Thirty-day all-cause mortality rates were 9.7% ( n  = 18) overall and 10.2% ( n  = 13) in severe CAP. In sensitivity analysis using ICU admission as a more objective marker of severe CAP ( n  = 75), clinical response and 30 day mortality occurred in 57 (76.0%) and 10 (13.3%) patients, respectively. Overall, clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with >60% shorter length of ICU stay (3.6 versus 9.2 days), and >30% lower hospital costs ($8449 versus $12 559) versus non-responders., Conclusions: Ceftaroline fosamil was effective in treating adults with CAP, including severe CAP, in Europe and Latin America. Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use compared with non-responders., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Objectives: Metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-producing Enterobacterales are a major challenge worldwide due to limited treatment options. Aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), which is under clinical development, has shown activity against MBL-positive isolates. This study evaluated the prevalence of MBL producers and the nature of enzymes among a global collection of clinical isolates of Enterobacterales from the Antimicrobial Testing Leadership and Surveillance program (ATLAS) surveillance program (2016-2020), and the antimicrobial activity of ATM-AVI and comparators against this collection., Methods: Non-duplicate clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (N = 106 686) collected across 63 countries were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility was performed using broth microdilution. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were interpreted using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing breakpoints. Provisional pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic breakpoint of ≤8 mg/L was considered for ATM-AVI. β-lactamase genes were characterized by polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. The Cochran Armitage Trend test was used to determine significant trends in percentage of isolates over time., Results: Overall, MBL-positive isolates were 1.6% of total Enterobacterales isolates globally, with a significant increasing trend observed over time, globally and across regions (P < 0.05). New Delhi MBL (NDM) was the most common MBL (83.3%). ATM-AVI demonstrated potent activity against MBL-positive isolates (MIC ≤8 mg/L: 99.4% isolates inhibited; MIC 90 , 1 mg/L). Consistent activity was also noted across different regions. Potent activity was demonstrated against different NDM variants and MBL-positive isolates co-carrying other carbapenemases (98.1% and 99.7% isolates inhibited at ≤8 mg/L, respectively). About 0.6% MBL-positive isolates (10/1707) had MICs >8 mg/L for ATM-AVI., Conclusion: ATM-AVI demonstrated potent activity against MBL-positive isolates, including NDM variants and MBL-positive isolates co-carrying other carbapenemases, and may represent a good option for treating infections caused by MBL-positive Enterobacterales., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Increasing antimicrobial resistance among multidrug-resistant (MDR), extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), in particular metallo-β-lactamase (MBL)-positive strains, has led to limited treatment options in these isolates. This study evaluated the activity of aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI) and comparator antimicrobials against Enterobacterales isolates and key resistance phenotypes stratified by wards, infection sources and geographic regions as part of the ATLAS program between 2016 and 2020. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. The susceptibility of antimicrobials were interpreted using CLSI and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints. A tentative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic breakpoint of 8 µg/mL was considered for ATM-AVI activity. ATM-AVI inhibited ≥99.2% of Enterobacterales isolates across wards and ≥99.7% isolates across infection sources globally and in all regions at ≤8 µg/mL. For resistance phenotypes, ATM-AVI demonstrated sustained activity across wards and infection sources by inhibiting ≥98.5% and ≥99.1% of multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates, ≥98.6% and ≥99.1% of ESBL-positive isolates, ≥96.8% and ≥90.9% of carbapenem-resistant (CR) isolates, and ≥96.8% and ≥97.4% of MBL-positive isolates, respectively, at ≤8 µg/mL globally and across regions. Overall, our study demonstrated that ATM-AVI represents an important therapeutic option for infections caused by Enterobacterales, including key resistance phenotypes across different wards and infection sources.

Objectives: Ceftaroline is an important therapeutic option for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Antimicrobial susceptibility to ceftaroline and other antimicrobial agents against Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae isolates collected worldwide from identified respiratory tract sources is reported by age groups (0-18, 19-65, and >65 years)., Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates, collected as part of the ATLAS program (2017-2019), was performed per EUCAST/CLSI guidelines., Results: S. aureus (N = 7103; methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA] = 4203; methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA] = 2791), S. pneumoniae (N = 4823; EUCAST/CLSI, penicillin-intermediate S. pneumoniae [PISP] = 1408/870; penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae [PRSP] = 455/993), and H. influenzae (N = 3850; β-lactamase [βL]-negative = 3097; βL-positive = 753) isolates were collected from respiratory tract specimens. Susceptibility to ceftaroline was 89.08%-97.83% for S. aureus, 99.95%-100% for MSSA, and 78.07%-92.74% for MRSA isolates across age groups; S. aureus as well as MRSA isolates derived from the 0-18 years age group demonstrated the highest susceptibility rates to ceftaroline. Susceptibility to ceftaroline was 98.25%-99.77% for S. pneumoniae, 99.74%-100% for PISP, and 86.23%-99.04% for PRSP isolates across age groups. Across all age groups, susceptibility to ceftaroline was 89.53%-99.70% for H. influenzae, 93.02%-100% for βL-negative, and 77.78%-98.35% for βL-positive isolates., Conclusion: Irrespective of age, susceptibility to ceftaroline was high among the majority of S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, and H. influenzae isolates collected in this study., (Copyright © 2023 The Pfizer Inc, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Infections caused by drug-resistant Enterobacterales including those producing metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) are particularly challenging due to limited therapeutic options. The drug combination aztreonam/avibactam (ATM-AVI) is under clinical development for treating serious infections caused by these strains. This study assessed the in vitro activity of ATM-AVI against Enterobacterales isolates collected globally in the ATLAS surveillance programme in 2019., Methods: Clinical isolates of Enterobacterales (N = 18 713) including Citrobacter freundii, Citrobacter koseri, Enterobacter cloacae complex, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella aerogenes, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, and Serratia marcescens collected from 232 sites in 2019 were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by reference broth microdilution. A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic based breakpoint of 8 mg/L was considered for ATM-AVI activity., Results: ATM-AVI demonstrated potent antimicrobial activity against all Enterobacterales, with 99.9% isolates inhibited at MIC ≤8 mg/L (MIC 90 , 0.25 mg/L). MICs ≤8 mg/L (>99.0%) were noted for ATM-AVI across regions worldwide. Among other antimicrobials, amikacin, colistin, imipenem, meropenem, and tigecycline were also active (susceptibility >85.0%) against Enterobacterales. Activity of ATM-AVI was sustained against multidrug-resistant, extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing, and carbapenem-resistant isolates (susceptibility >99%; MIC 90 , 0.25-0.5 mg/L). Importantly, potent activity for ATM-AVI (>99.0%; MIC 90, 0.5 mg/L) was noted among MBL-positive isolates and those producing other carbapenemases, such as KPC and OXA-48., Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that ATM-AVI was highly active against a recent collection of Enterobacterales isolates, including those producing MBLs either alone or in combination with other carbapenemases. Thus, ATM-AVI represents a potential option for treating infections caused by antibiotic-resistant Enterobacterales including MBL-producing strains., Competing Interests: Competing interests FFA, GS, and MK are current employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options with Pfizer. GMR has received research grants/materials, and/or been a consultant and/or received a fee for speaking from Accelerate, Angelini, Arrow, Beckman Coulter, Becton-Dickinson, Biomedical Service, bioMérieux, Cepheid, DID, Hain Life Sciences, Menarini, MSD, Meridian, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Qiagen, Q-linea, Qpex, Quidel, Qvella, Roche, SD Biosensor, Seegene, Set-Lance, Shionogi, Symcel, ThermoFisher, VenatorX, and Zambon companies., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This exploratory pooled analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil and comparators across six phase III clinical trials in adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) and secondary bacteraemia., Methods: In each trial, FOCUS 1 and 2 (CAP), Asia CAP trial, CANVAS 1 and 2 (cSSTI) and COVERS (cSSTI), patients were randomised to ceftaroline fosamil [600 mg q12h by 1-h i.v. infusion, except in COVERS (600 mg q8h by 2-h i.v. infusion), adjusted for renal function] or comparator. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at test-of-cure visit [microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population]. Safety outcomes were assessed., Results: The pooled mMITT population comprised 1976 patients, of whom 138 had baseline bacteraemia (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 72; comparator, n = 66). Predominant baseline blood pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 29), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 19) and other streptococci (n = 12). Clinical cure rates in bacteraemic patients were 55/72 (76.4%) and 51/66 (77.3%) for ceftaroline fosamil and comparators, respectively, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 822/966 (85.1%) and 717/872 (82.2%). Favourable microbiological response rates in bacteraemic patients were 56/72 (77.8%) for ceftaroline fosamil and 54/66 (81.8%) for comparators, and in non-bacteraemic patients were 825/966 (85.4%) and 719/872 (82.5%). Adverse events in bacteraemic patients were consistent with the known ceftaroline fosamil safety profile or the underlying indications., Conclusion: These pooled clinical and microbiological efficacy data demonstrate generally favourable outcomes for ceftaroline fosamil in patients with CAP or cSSTI and secondary bacteraemia. [Trial Registration: NCT00621504, NCT00509106; NCT01371838; NCT00424190, NCT00423657; NCT01499277]., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In three phase III randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline fosamil was shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). This exploratory analysis evaluated the impact of underlying comorbidities on clinical outcomes in patients with cSSTI pooled from these three studies., Methods: CANVAS 1 and 2 and COVERS evaluated ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h [q12h]; 600 mg every 8 h [q8h; COVERS]) versus vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g q12h each [CANVAS 1 and 2]; vancomycin 15 mg/kg q12h and aztreonam 1 g q8h [COVERS]) in hospitalized adults with cSSTI. The primary efficacy variable in each trial was clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Subgroup analyses were performed on the pooled clinically evaluable (CE) population, exploring the impact of age and various baseline comorbidities., Results: Overall, 1808 patients were included in the CE population (1005 ceftaroline fosamil; 803 vancomycin plus aztreonam). Clinical cure rates at TOC were 89.7% (ceftaroline fosamil) and 90.8% (vancomycin plus aztreonam) (difference [95% confidence interval] - 1.13 [- 3.87, 1.67]). Clinical response rates were similar between treatment groups, regardless of age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and in subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, cancer/malignancy, renal impairment, and obesity; within these subgroups, efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the overall cSSTI population., Conclusions: This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with cSSTI and underlying comorbidities., Trial Registration: CANVAS 1, NCT00424190 and CANVAS 2, NCT00423657 (both trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 18/01/2007); COVERS, NCT01499277 (first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 26/12/2011)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)/community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI)/acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) represent major causes of morbidity and mortality in children. β-Lactams are the cornerstone of antibiotic treatment for many serious bacterial infections in children; however, most of these agents have no activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Ceftaroline fosamil, a β-lactam with broad-spectrum in vitro activity against Gram-positive pathogens (including MRSA and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae) and common Gram-negative organisms, is approved in the European Union and the United States for children with CAP/CABP or cSSTI/ABSSSI. Ceftaroline fosamil has completed a pediatric investigation plan including safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic evaluations in patients with ages ranging from birth to 17 years. It has demonstrated similar clinical and microbiological efficacy to best available existing treatments in phase III-IV trials in patients aged ≥ 2 months to < 18 years with CABP or ABSSSI, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. It is also approved in the European Union for neonates with CAP or cSSTI, and in the US for neonates with ABSSSI. Ceftaroline fosamil dosing for children (including renal function adjustments) is supported by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulations in appropriate age groups, and includes the option of 5- to 60-min intravenous infusions for standard doses, and a high dose for cSSTI patients with MRSA isolates, with a ceftaroline minimum inhibitory concentration of 2-4 mg/L. Considered together, these data suggest ceftaroline fosamil may be beneficial in the management of CAP/CABP and cSSTI/ABSSSI in children., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aim: Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm 2 ) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5-14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS., Results: Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), is an important aetiological cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Empiric therapy for CAP frequently consists of β-lactam monotherapy or β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy. However, such agents are often ineffective against S. aureus and do not reflect the emergence and increasing prevalence of MRSA in the community setting. Ceftaroline fosamil is a fifth-generation parenteral cephalosporin with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive pathogens - such as S. aureus (including MRSA), Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes - and typical Gram-negative pathogens, including Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The approval of ceftaroline fosamil in the United States and Europe for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe CAP was based on two phase 3 trials (FOCUS 1 and 2), which demonstrated that ceftaroline fosamil was non-inferior to ceftriaxone, a standard empiric treatment for CAP, while exhibiting a comparable safety profile. Although head-to-head trials of ceftaroline fosamil versus comparators against MRSA CAP are lacking, the effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in subpopulations of patients not covered by phase 3 trials (e.g. those with MRSA CAP or severe renal impairment) has been demonstrated in the Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro Utilization Registry (CAPTURE) study. As ineffective empiric therapy is associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality and increased costs, ceftaroline fosamil, with its extended spectrum of activity, is an attractive alternative to standard antibiotic CAP regimens., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objective of this study was to review our clinical experience on the safety and efficacy of anidulafungin, an echinocandin antifungal, in the treatment of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in patients with moderate to severe abnormal liver function tests or multiorgan failure and IFI, in a large United Kingdom Liver Centre., Methods: The clinical records of the first 50 consecutive patients treated for IFI with anidulafungin between January 7, 2009 and March 2, 2011 were analyzed. Data were collected on demographics, underlying disease, disease characteristics, hematological and biochemical parameters, IFI, concomitant bacterial and viral infections, response to anidulafungin, and anidulafungin-related adverse events., Results: The patients' median age was 54.3 years (range, 19.6-75.9); 60% were male. Twenty-two (44%) patients were liver transplant recipients. Others had hepatopancreaticobiliary disease (n = 15, 30%) or chronic liver disease (n = 11, 22%). Invasive fungal infection (predominantly Candida spp) was proven in 36 (72%) patients, probable in 14 (28%). Of 46 evaluable patients, 35 (76%) had a favorable anidulafungin treatment outcome. Forty-nine (98%) had abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) pretreatment; 31 (62%) had ≥1 LFT raised to ≥2× baseline during anidulafungin treatment., Conclusions: In this highly specialized group of patients, anidulafungin treatment was efficacious and well tolerated by those with decompensated liver disease, multiorgan failure, and high-risk liver transplant with proven or probable IFI.

Background: Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases strongly recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC. Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for C/IC based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines., Methods: Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin anidulafungin were compared with those for caspofungin, micafungin and fluconazole. The model included non-neutropenic patients aged ≥16 years with confirmed C/IC who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. Patients were categorised as either a clinical success or failure (patients with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated patients switched to oral therapy, while patients categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6 weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources., Results: The model indicated that first-line anidulafungin could be considered cost-effective versus fluconazole (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of C/IC. Anidulafungin was cost-saving versus caspofungin and micafungin due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success., Discussion: European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC; our model indicated that anidulafungin marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: From the United Kingdom perspective, anidulafungin was cost-effective compared with fluconazole for the treatment of C/IC and was cost-saving versus the other echinocandins.

Purpose: Patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) are treated empirically with antifungal therapy (AFT). Early treatment using a diagnostic-driven (DD) strategy may reduce clinical and economic burdens. We compared costs and outcomes of both strategies from a UK perspective., Methods: An empirical strategy with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (C-AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), or caspofungin was compared with a DD strategy (initiated based on positive ELISA results for galactomannan antigen) and/or positive results for Aspergillus species on polymerase chain reaction assay) using C-AmB, voriconazole, or L-AmB in a decision-analytic model. Rates of IFD incidence, overall mortality, and IFD-related mortality in adults expected to be neutropenic for ≥10 days were obtained. The empirical strategy was assumed to identify 30% of IFD and targeted AFT to improve survival by a hazard ratio of 0.589. AFT-specific adverse events were obtained from a summary of product characteristics. Resource use was obtained, and costs were estimated by using standard UK costing sources. All costs are presented in 2012 British pounds sterling., Findings: Total costs were 32% lower for the DD strategy (£1561.29) versus the empirical strategy (£2301.93) due to a reduced incidence of adverse events and decreased use of AFT. Administration of AFT was reduced by 41% (DD strategy, 74 of 1000; empirical strategy, 125 of 1000), with similar survival rates., Implications: This study suggests that a DD strategy is likely to be cost-saving versus empirical treatment for immunocompromised patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making., Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC., Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents., Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.