Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team Research Articles

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.

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.

Lefamulin in Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Caused by Atypical Respiratory Pathogens: Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Trials.

Lefamulin was the first systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia based on two phase 3 trials (Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia [LEAP]-1 and LEAP-2). This pooled analysis evaluated lefamulin efficacy and safety in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). In LEAP-1, participants received intravenous lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h for 5–7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch. In LEAP-2, participants received oral lefamulin 600 mg every 12 h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response at 96 ± 24 h after first dose and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5–10 days after last dose). Atypical pathogens were identified in 25.0% (91/364) of lefamulin-treated patients and 25.2% (87/345) of moxifloxacin-treated patients; most were identified by ≥1 standard diagnostic modality (M. pneumoniae 71.2% [52/73]; L. pneumophila 96.9% [63/65]; C. pneumoniae 79.3% [46/58]); the most common standard diagnostic modality was serology. In terms of disease severity, more than 90% of patients had CURB-65 (confusion of new onset, blood urea nitrogen > 19 mg/dL, respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths/min, blood pressure <90 mm Hg systolic or ≤60 mm Hg diastolic, and age ≥ 65 years) scores of 0–2; approximately 50% of patients had PORT (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team) risk class of III, and the remaining patients were more likely to have PORT risk class of II or IV versus V. In patients with atypical pathogens, early clinical response (lefamulin 84.4–96.6%; moxifloxacin 90.3–96.8%) and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (lefamulin 74.1–89.7%; moxifloxacin 74.2–97.1%) were high and similar between arms. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in the lefamulin (34.1% [31/91]) and moxifloxacin (32.2% [28/87]) groups. Limitations to this analysis include its post hoc nature, the small numbers of patients infected with atypical pathogens, the possibility of PCR-based diagnostic methods to identify non-etiologically relevant pathogens, and the possibility that these findings may not be generalizable to all patients. Lefamulin as short-course empiric monotherapy, including 5-day oral therapy, was well tolerated in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and demonstrated high clinical response rates against atypical pathogens.

Efficacy of Omadacycline Versus Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia by Disease Severity: Results From the OPTIC Study.

BackgroundSeverity/mortality risk scores and disease characteristics may assist in deciding whether patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) require outpatient treatment or hospitalization. The phase 3 OPTIC (Omadacycline for Pneumonia Treatment In the Community) study enrolled patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II–IV. Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to moxifloxacin in adults with CABP, at early clinical response (ECR) and posttreatment evaluation (PTE). We assessed efficacy of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin in these patients based on disease severity.MethodsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) omadacycline (100 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses followed by 100 mg daily [q24h], with optional transition to omadacycline 300 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment) or moxifloxacin IV 400 mg q24h (with optional transition to 400 mg orally q24h after 3 days of IV treatment). Total treatment duration was 7–14 days. We compared rates of early clinical success (72–120 hours after first dose) and investigator-assessed clinical success at PTE (5–10 days after last dose) in subgroups based (1) on severity/mortality risk scores (PORT, CURB-65, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, modified ATS, SMART-COP) and (2) on presence of baseline radiographic characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, or bacteremia.ResultsAltogether, 774 patients (omadacycline, n = 386; moxifloxacin, n = 388) were randomized. Clinical success rates (ECR/PTE) were similar between treatment groups (across all subgroups). Efficacy across treatment groups was similar in patients with baseline radiographic characteristics or COPD/asthma, but moxifloxacin had higher clinical success rates in patients with bacteremia.ConclusionsEfficacy of omadacycline was similar to that of moxifloxacin, regardless of disease severity/mortality risk and disease characteristics.

Oral 5-Day Lefamulin for Outpatient Management of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Post-hoc Analysis of the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 2 Trial.

Safe and effective oral antibiotics are needed for outpatient management of moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). We describe a post-hoc analysis of adults with CABP managed as outpatients from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 2 double-blind, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trial. LEAP 2 compared the efficacy and safety of oral lefamulin 600mg every 12h (5days) vs. oral moxifloxacin 400mg every 24h (7days) in adults (inpatients and outpatients) with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk classes II‒IV. Overall, 41% (151 of 368) of patients receiving lefamulin and 43% (159 of 368) of patients receiving moxifloxacin started treatment as outpatients-44% and 40%, respectively, were PORT risk class III/IV, and 21% in both groups had CURB-65 scores of 2‒3. Early clinical response (at 96±24h) and investigator assessment of clinical response success rates at test of cure (5‒10days after last study drug dose) were high and similar in both groups among all (lefamulin, 91% vs. moxifloxacin, 89‒90%), PORT risk class III/IV (89‒91% vs. 88‒91%), and CURB-65 score 2‒3 (87‒90% vs. 82‒88%) outpatients. Few outpatients (lefamulin, 2.6%; moxifloxacin, 2.5%) discontinued the study drug because of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). No outpatient in the lefamulin group was hospitalized for a TEAE, compared with 5 patients (3%), including two deaths, in the moxifloxacin group. These data suggest that 5days of oral lefamulin can be given in lieu of fluoroquinolones for outpatient treatment of adults with CABP and PORT risk class III/IV or CURB-65 scores of 2‒3.

664. Efficacy in Adults With Moderate to Severe Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP) and Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Risk Class III to V: Results of a Pooled Analysis of Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 Study Outcomes

BackgroundCABP, the second most common cause of hospitalization in the US, has prognoses ranging from rapid resolution to death, the likelihood of which can be estimated via PORT pneumonia severity index. Patients with PORT scores ≤III have predicted mortality rates <3% and may be managed as outpatients; those with scores of IV/V are often hospitalized, owing to higher predicted mortality rates (8%–31%). Lefamulin (LEF), a novel systemic antibiotic, was noninferior to moxifloxacin (MOX) for treatment of adults with CABP in 2 phase 3 trials (LEAP 1 and 2). We report the results of pooled analyses of LEAP 1/2 data in patients with PORT III and IV/V scores.MethodsIn LEAP 1, patients (PORT III–V) received IV LEF 150 mg for 5–7 d or MOX 400 mg for 7 d, with optional IV-to-oral switch. In LEAP 2, patients (PORT II–IV) received oral LEF 600 mg for 5 d or MOX 400 mg for 7 d. In both studies, randomization was stratified by PORT score. The studies assessed early clinical response (ECR; 96±24 h after first dose) in the intent-to-treat (ITT; all randomized patients) population (FDA primary endpoint) and investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) success at test of cure (5–10 d after last dose) in the modified ITT (received ≥1 dose) and clinically evaluable (met predefined evaluability criteria) populations (EMA coprimary endpoints).ResultsOver 50% of patients (52.8% LEF; 51.9% MOX) were PORT III and >18% (18.7% LEF; 18.2% MOX) were PORT IV/V, reflective of the CABP population. As expected, PORT IV/V patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities (eg, moderate/severe renal impairment) vs. PORT III patients (Table 1). ECR and IACR response rates were high and similar for LEF and MOX in PORT III (Figure 1) and PORT IV/V (Figure 2) patients, with slightly higher rates in PORT III vs. PORT IV/V patients. LEF and MOX had similar safety profiles, with more adverse events overall in PORT IV/V vs. PORT III patients (Table 2). Mortality rates were low, with higher rates in PORT IV/V (4.2% LEF; 5.2% MOX) vs. PORT III (1.5% LEF; 0.6% MOX) patients.ConclusionECR and IACR rates with LEF were high and similar to MOX in patients who are candidates for outpatient (PORT III) and inpatient (PORT IV/V) treatment; LEF may be an alternative oral and IV monotherapy option for empiric CABP treatment in both populations. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

2245. Oral 5-Day Lefamulin for Outpatient Management of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Risk Class III/IV Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP): Post Hoc Analysis of the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 2 Phase 3 Study

BackgroundSite-of-care decisions (e.g., admission vs. outpatient) in CABP management can be challenging for healthcare providers. Here we describe a post hoc analysis of adults with CABP managed as outpatients in the LEAP 2 double-blind, noninferiority, Phase 3 trial.MethodsLEAP 2 compared the efficacy and safety of oral lefamulin (LEF) 600 mg every 12 hours for 5 days vs. oral moxifloxacin (MOX) 400 mg every 24 hours for 7 days in adults with PORT Risk Class II-IV. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety outcomes in the subpopulation of outpatients in LEAP 2.ResultsOverall, 42% (310/736) of patients started treatment as outpatients (41% [151/368] LEF and 43% [159/368] MOX). Age, gender, and BMI were generally similar in both treatment groups. 44% (66/151) LEF and 40% (64/159) MOX outpatients had PORT Risk Class III or IV, and 21% in both groups (31/151 LEF and 34/159 MOX) had CURB-65 score 2 or 3. Comorbidities included smoking history (43% LEF vs. 34% MOX), hypertension (26% vs. 30%), COPD/asthma (14% vs. 18%), and diabetes mellitus (7% vs. 11%). Early clinical response (ECR) responder rates and investigator’s assessment of clinical response (IACR) success rates at the test of cure (TOC) visit were high and similar in both groups among all, PORT Risk Class III/IV, and CURB-65 score 2 or 3 outpatients (Table 1). In the PORT Risk Class III/IV subset, 86% LEF vs. 80% MOX patients were both an ECR responder and IACR success at TOC. In the CURB-65 score 2 or 3 subset, 87% LEF vs. 74% MOX patients were both an ECR responder and IACR success at TOC. Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were similar in both groups (Table 2). Consistent with overall study results, the difference between groups in related TEAEs was driven by gastrointestinal disorders (20% LEF vs. 5% MOX), specifically diarrhea (15% vs. 1%). Rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation were low and similar in both groups. No LEF outpatient had an SAE or was admitted during the study, compared with 5 (3%) SAEs, including 2 deaths, in the MOX group.ConclusionThese study data suggest that PORT Risk Class III or IV patients can be effectively managed as outpatients with 5 days of oral LEF as an alternative to fluoroquinolones for the treatment of CABP. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Erratum to: Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous-to-oral Lefamulin, a Pleuromutilin Antibiotic, for the Treatment of Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: The Phase III Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1)Trial.

BACKGROUND Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, is active against pathogens commonly causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) study was a global noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. METHODS In this double-blind study, adults with CABP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class ≥III were randomized 1:1 to receive lefamulin at 150 mg intravenously (IV) every 12 hours or moxifloxacin at 400 mg IV every 24 hours. After 6 doses, patients could be switched to an oral study drug if prespecified improvement criteria were met. If methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was suspected, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamulin, respectively. The US Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) 96 ± 24 hours after the first dose of the study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (noninferiority margin, 12.5%). The European Medicines Agency co-primary endpoints were an investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5-10 days after the last dose of the study drug in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%). RESULTS There were 551 patients randomized (n = 276 lefamulin; n = 275 moxifloxacin). Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for ECR (87.3% vs 90.2%, respectively; difference -2.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] g -8.5 to 2.8) and IACR (mITT, 81.7% vs 84.2%, respectively; difference -2.6%, 95% CI -8.9 to 3.9; CE, 86.9% vs 89.4%, respectively; difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.4 to 3.4). Rates of study drug discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 2.9% for lefamulin and 4.4% for moxifloxacin. CONCLUSIONS Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the primary efficacy endpoints and was generally safe and well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NCT02559310.

Oral Lefamulin vs Moxifloxacin for Early Clinical Response Among Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

New antibacterials are needed to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) because of growing antibacterial resistance and safety concerns with standard care. To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of a 5-day oral lefamulin regimen in patients with CABP. A phase 3, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 99 sites in 19 countries that included adults aged 18 years or older with a Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class of II, III, or IV; radiographically documented pneumonia; acute illness; 3 or more CABP symptoms; and 2 or more vital sign abnormalities. The first patient visit was on August 30, 2016, and patients were followed up for 30 days; the final follow-up visit was on January 2, 2018. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 hours for 5 days; n = 370) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours for 7 days; n = 368). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) primary end point was early clinical response at 96 hours (within a 24-hour window) after the first dose of either study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients). Responders were defined as alive, showing improvement in 2 or more of the 4 CABP symptoms, having no worsening of any CABP symptoms, and not receiving any nonstudy antibacterial drug for current CABP episode. The European Medicines Agency coprimary end points (FDA secondary end points) were investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5-10 days after last dose) in the modified ITT population and in the clinically evaluable population. The noninferiority margin was 10% for early clinical response and investigator assessment of clinical response. Among 738 randomized patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 351 women [47.6%]; 360 had a PORT risk class of III or IV [48.8%]), 707 (95.8%) completed the trial. Early clinical response rates were 90.8% with lefamulin and 90.8% with moxifloxacin (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -4.4% to ∞]). Rates of investigator assessment of clinical response success were 87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin in the modified ITT population (difference, -1.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.3% to ∞]) and 89.7% and 93.6%, respectively, in the clinically evaluable population (difference, -3.9% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -8.2% to ∞]) at test of cure. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (diarrhea: 45/368 [12.2%] in lefamulin group and 4/368 [1.1%] in moxifloxacin group; nausea: 19/368 [5.2%] in lefamulin group and 7/368 [1.9%] in moxifloxacin group). Among patients with CABP, 5-day oral lefamulin was noninferior to 7-day oral moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response at 96 hours after first dose. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02813694; European Clinical Trials Identifier: 2015-004782-92.

Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND We conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials of adults hospitalized with pneumonia outcomes research team (PORT) risk class 3-4 community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) receiving ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone. METHODS Three Phase III trials (clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers NCT00621504, NCT00509106 and NCT01371838) including 1916 hospitalized patients with CAP randomized 1:1 to empirical ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h) or ceftriaxone (1-2 g every 24 h) for 5-7 days were included in the meta-analysis. Primary outcome was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (8-15 days after end of treatment) in the PORT risk class 3-4 modified ITT (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations. Data were tested for heterogeneity (χ(2) test) and, if not significant, results were pooled and OR and 95% CI constructed. A logistic regression analysis assessed factors impacting cure rate and treatment interactions. RESULTS Clinical cure rates in each trial consistently favoured ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone, with no evidence of heterogeneity. In the meta-analysis, ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone in the MITT (OR: 1.66; 95% CI 1.34, 2.06; P < 0.001) and CE (OR: 1.65; 95% CI 1.26, 2.16; P < 0.001) populations. Results were consistent across various patient- and disease-related factors including patients' age and PORT score. Prior antimicrobial use within 96 h of starting study treatment was associated with diminished differences in cure rates between treatments. CONCLUSIONS Ceftaroline fosamil was superior to ceftriaxone for empirical treatment of adults hospitalized with CAP. Receipt of prior antimicrobial therapy appeared to diminish the observed treatment effect.

Efficacy and safety of oral solithromycin versus oral moxifloxacin for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: a global, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial (SOLITAIRE-ORAL)

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and treatment recommendations, each with specific limitations, vary globally. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP. We did this global, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin America, Europe, and South Africa. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically and radiographically confirmed pneumonia of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based central block randomisation procedure (block size of four), to receive either oral solithromycin (800 mg on day 1, 400 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7). Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, PORT risk class (II vs III or IV), and medical history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study sponsor, investigators, staff, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was early clinical response, defined as an improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, chest pain, sputum production, dyspnoea) with no worsening in any symptom at 72 h after the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT-01756339. Between Jan 3, 2013, and Sept 24, 2014, we randomly assigned 860 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434). Patients were followed up to days 28-35 after first dose. Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response: 333 (78·2%) patients had an early clinical response in the solithromycin group versus 338 (77·9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0·29, 95% CI -5·5 to 6·1). Both drugs had a similar safety profile. 43 (10%) of 155 treatment-emergent adverse events in the solithromycin group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study drug. The most common adverse events, mostly of mild severity, were gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhoea (18 [4%] patients in the solithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients) and vomiting (ten [2%] patients in each group); and nervous system disorders, including headache (19 [4%] vs 11 [3%] patients) and dizziness (nine [2%] vs seven [2%] patients). Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showing the potential to restore macrolide monotherapy for this indication. Cempra.

Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of Asian patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority with nested superiority trial

Ceftriaxone with or without a macrolide antibiotic is a recommended treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospital admission and intravenous antibiotic treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil compared with ceftriaxone in the treatment of Asian patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia. In this international, randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority with nested superiority trial, adult Asian patients with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III-IV acute community-acquired pneumonia were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h) or ceftriaxone (2 g every 24 h) for 5-7 days. Patients were randomly assigned via centralised telephone and web-based system; patients and treating clinicians were masked to treatment allocation. Investigators who did study assessments remained masked to treatment allocation until completion of the study. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (8-15 days after last dose of study drug) in the clinically evaluable population. Non-inferiority of ceftaroline fosamil was defined as a lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the proportion of patients clinically cured of -10% or higher; if non-inferiority was achieved, superiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than 0%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01371838. Between Dec 13, 2011, and April 26, 2013, 847 patients were enrolled at 64 centres in China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, of whom 771 were randomly assigned and 764 received study treatment. In the clinically evaluable population (n=498) 217 (84%) of 258 patients in the ceftaroline fosamil group and 178 (74%) of 240 patients in the ceftriaxone group were clinically cured at the test-of-cure visit (difference 9·9%, 95% CI 2·8-17·1). The superiority of ceftaroline fosamil was consistent across all preplanned patient subgroup analyses (split by age 65 years, age 75 years, sex, PORT risk class, and previous antibiotic use) apart from patients younger than 65 years. The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups and the safety results for ceftaroline fosamil were consistent with the cephalosporin class and previous clinical trial data. Ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg given every 12 h was superior to ceftriaxone 2 g given every 24 h for the treatment of Asian patients with PORT III-IV community-acquired pneumonia. These data suggest that ceftaroline fosamil should be regarded as an alternative to ceftriaxone in empirical treatment regimens for this patient population. AstraZeneca.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: from FOCUS to CAPTURE.

Ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline hereafter) is the latest addition to the armamentarium for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). It is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which is a recent FDA indication that centers on individuals with documented bacterial pneumonias that arise in the community setting. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the major findings from the Phase III CAP clinical trials as well as the clinical experience with ceftaroline among patients with CAP in the “Ceftaroline Assessment Program and Teflaro® Utilization Registry” (CAPTURE). In its two Phase III CAP trials, ceftaroline was compared to ceftriaxone among adults with radiographically confirmed CAP requiring hospitalization who were classified as Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV. Among patients with CAP, clinical success at test of cure was 84.3% vs 77.7% (difference 6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–11.8%) in those treated with ceftaroline and ceftriaxone, respectively, across the two Phase III clinical trials. Among patients with a culture-confirmed CABP, day 4 response rates were numerically higher, albeit non-significant, among patients that received ceftaroline vs. ceftriaxone (69.5% for ceftaroline vs. 59.4% for ceftriaxone, difference 10.1%, 95% CI, −0.6% to 20.6%). The efficacy of ceftaroline is supported by real-world observational data from CAPTURE for patients with both CAP and CABP. In addition, the CAPTURE program afforded an opportunity to assess the outcomes of patients who were excluded or limited in the original Phase III trials in a non-comparative fashion. These underrepresented patient populations with CAP included: patients that received prior antibiotics, patients in the ICU, patients with severe renal dysfunction, and those with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from respiratory or blood culture. As CAPTURE is a retrospective, non-comparator convenience sample registry, all the findings need to be interpreted with caution.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40121-014-0036-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Relationship between time to clinical response and outcomes among Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who received ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance endorses the use of an early clinical response endpoint as the primary outcome for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) trials. While antibiotics will now be approved for CABP, in practice they will primarily be used to treat patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). More importantly, it is unclear how achievement of the new FDA CABP early response endpoint translates into clinically applicable real-world outcomes for patients with CAP. To address this, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients who received ceftriaxone and azithromycin for CAP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III and IV at an academic medical center. The clinical response was defined as clinical stability for 24 h with improvement in at least one pneumonia symptom and with no symptom worsening. A classification and regression tree (CART) was used to determine the delay in response time, measured in days, associated with the greatest risk of a prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) and adverse outcomes (in-hospital mortality or 30-day CAP-related readmission). A total of 250 patients were included. On average, patients were discharged 2 days following the achievement of a clinical response. In the CART analysis, adverse clinical outcomes were higher among day 5 nonresponders than those who responded by day 5 (22.4% versus 6.9%, P = 0.001). The findings from this study indicate that time to clinical response, as defined by the recent FDA guidance, is a reasonable prognostic indicator of real-world effectiveness outcomes among hospitalized PORT risk class III and IV patients with CAP who received ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

Ceftaroline Fosamil: A Review of its Use in the Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Ceftaroline, the active metabolite of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil (Zinforo, Teflaro), is an advanced-generation, parenteral cephalosporin with broad-spectrum antibacterial activity in vitro against Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Gram-negative bacteria, including Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis, but not Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Ceftaroline has demonstrated a low potential for the selection of resistance in vitro for drug-resistant Gram-positive organisms, including MRSA, as well as for Gram-negative respiratory pathogens. In pivotal phase III studies, intravenous ceftaroline fosamil demonstrated noninferiority to intravenous vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) and intravenous ceftriaxone in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) [Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV]; however, patients with CAP admitted to the intensive care unit were not evaluated. Ceftaroline fosamil was generally well tolerated in these trials, with an adverse event profile similar to that of other cephalosporins. Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported adverse event; however, the risk of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea with ceftaroline fosamil appeared to be low. Potential limitations of the drug include the lack of an oral formulation and the requirement for twice-daily administration. Nonetheless, ceftaroline fosamil represents an attractive option (either alone or in combination with other agents) for the initial empirical treatment of patients hospitalized with cSSTIs (including those with suspected MRSA infection) or CAP (PORT risk class III or IV) who require intravenous antimicrobial therapy. As with all antibacterial agents, ceftaroline fosamil should be used in accordance with good antimicrobial stewardship.

The Incidence of Necrotizing Changes in Adults With Pneumococcal Pneumonia

Necrotizing pneumonia is generally considered a rare complication of pneumococcal infection in adults. We systematically studied the incidence of necrotizing changes in adult patients with pneumococcal pneumonia and examined the severity of infection, role of causative serotypes, and association with bacteremia. We used a database of all pneumococcal infections identified at our medical center between 2000 and 2010. Original readings of chest X-rays (CXR) and computerized tomography (CT) were noted. Images were then independently reevaluated by 2 radiologists. The severity of disease at admission was assessed using SMART-COP and Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) scoring systems. In 351 cases of pneumococcal pneumonia, necrosis was reported in no (0%) original CXR readings and in 6 of 136 (4.4%) CTs. With rereading, 8 of 351 (2.3%) CXR and 15 of 136 (11.0%) CT had necrotizing changes. Overall, these changes were identified in 23 of 351 (6.6%) patients. The incidence of bacteremia and the admitting SMART-COP and PORT scores were similar in patients with and without necrosis (P = 1.00, P = .32, and P = .54, respectively). Type 3 pneumococcus was more commonly isolated from patients with necrosis than from patients without necrosis (P = .05), but 10 other serotypes were also implicated in 16 cases for which the organism was available for typing. Necrotizing changes in the lungs were seen in 6.6% of a large series of adults with pneumococcal pneumonia but were often overlooked on initial readings. Patients with necrosis were not more likely to have bacteremia or more severe disease. Type 3 pneumococcus was the most commonly identified serotype.

Ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of communityacquired pneumonia: findings from FOCUS 1 and 2 and potential role in therapy

Cephalosporins have been widely used over the last few decades (often as first-line antibiotic therapy) for numerous infections, owing primarily to their broad spectrum of microbiologic activity and favorable safety profile. Current Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines identify a third-generation cephalosporin in combination with a macrolide antibiotic as an option for treatment of hospitalized adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) outside the intensive care unit setting. Although ceftriaxone is a frequently used agent for CAP, increasing incidence of multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and concerns regarding poor outcomes associated with ineffective therapy have prompted the search for a well-tolerated treatment alternative that is effective against bacteria that can cause CAP. Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of ceftaroline, is a new extended-spectrum cephalosporin that exhibits time-dependant bactericidal activity against numerous Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae. Notable exceptions include Pseudomonas spp. and Gram-negative organisms that produce extended-spectrum β-lactamases or carbapenemases. Two large Phase III clinical trials (FOCUS 1 and 2) reported that ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated, with a clinical cure rate of CAP that was noninferior to that with ceftriaxone in nonintensive care unit adult inpatients with moderately severe (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team score of III or IV) community-acquired pneumonia.

Integrated safety summary of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials: Phase III randomized, double-blind studies evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Ceftaroline fosamil, the prodrug of the active metabolite ceftaroline, is a broad-spectrum, parenteral cephalosporin approved for treatment of moderate to severe bacterial infections, including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This report provides an integrated safety summary of the ceFtarOline Community-acquired pneUmonia trial versuS ceftriaxone (FOCUS) 1 and 2 trials (registration numbers: NCT00621504 and NCT00509106). Patients hospitalized with CAP requiring intravenous therapy and having Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class scores of III or IV were randomized (1:1) to receive 600 mg of ceftaroline fosamil administered intravenously every 12 h or 1 g of ceftriaxone administered intravenously every 24 h for 5-7 days. All patients were followed for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring from the start of the initial study drug infusion up to the test-of-cure visit; serious adverse events (SAEs) including deaths occurring up to the late follow-up visit or within 30 days after the last dose were additionally recorded. Scheduled laboratory testing was conducted up to the test-of-cure visit; unscheduled testing continued up to the late follow-up visit. A total of 1228 patients (613 in the ceftaroline fosamil group and 615 in the ceftriaxone group) received any amount of drug and were included in the safety analysis. The incidences of TEAEs (47.0% versus 45.7%), SAEs (11.3% versus 11.7%), discontinuations (4.4% versus 4.1%) and deaths (2.4% versus 2.0%) were similar between the ceftaroline fosamil and the ceftriaxone groups, respectively. Diarrhoea (4.2%), headache (3.4%) and insomnia (3.1%) were the most commonly reported TEAEs in patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil. The distribution of TEAEs based on severity was also similar between groups, and the majority of patients in both treatment groups (∼75%) had either no TEAEs or only mild TEAEs. The data from the FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2 trials presented in this integrated safety summary demonstrate that ceftaroline fosamil is well tolerated, with a tolerability profile similar to ceftriaxone and the cephalosporin class overall, with no unexpected safety concerns being identified.

FOCUS 1: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia

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.

FOCUS 2: a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, Phase III trial of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in community-acquired pneumonia

Ceftaroline (active form of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil) is a novel cephalosporin with activity against pathogens commonly associated with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae and Gram-negative pathogens. This randomized, double-blind, Phase III study evaluated 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%] of 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. Clinical cure, microbiological response, adverse events (AEs) and laboratory tests were assessed. FOCUS 2 registration number NCT00509106 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00509106). The study enrolled 627 patients, 315 of whom received ceftaroline fosamil and 307 of whom received ceftriaxone. Patients in both treatment groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Clinical cure rates were as follows: CE population, 82.1% (193/235) for ceftaroline fosamil and 77.2% (166/215) for ceftriaxone [difference (95% CI), 4.9% (-2.5, 12.5)]; and MITTE population, 81.3% (235/289) for ceftaroline fosamil and 75.5% (206/273) for ceftriaxone [difference (95% CI), 5.9% (-1.0, 12.7)]. Clinical cure rates for CAP caused by S. pneumoniae in the microbiological MITTE (mMITTE) population were 83.3% (35/42) and 70.0% (28/40) for ceftaroline fosamil and ceftriaxone, respectively. Ceftaroline fosamil and ceftriaxone were well tolerated, with similar rates of AEs, serious AEs, deaths and discontinuations due to an AE. The most common AEs for ceftaroline fosamil-treated patients were diarrhoea, headache, hypokalaemia, insomnia and phlebitis, and the most common AEs for ceftriaxone-treated patients were diarrhoea, insomnia, phlebitis and hypertension. Ceftaroline fosamil achieved high clinical cure and microbiological response rates in patients hospitalized with CAP of PORT risk class III or IV. Ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated, with a safety profile that is similar to that of ceftriaxone and other cephalosporins. Ceftaroline fosamil is a promising agent for the treatment of CAP.

Integrated Analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: Randomized, Doubled‐Blinded, Multicenter Phase 3 Trials of the Efficacy and Safety of Ceftaroline Fosamil versus Ceftriaxone in Patients with Community‐Acquired Pneumonia

Ceftaroline, the active form of ceftaroline fosamil, is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against pathogens causing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae. Ceftaroline was evaluated for the treatment of CAP in 2 randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials: Ceftaroline Community Acquired Pneumonia Trial versus Ceftriaxone in Hospitalized Patients (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2. Patients hospitalized (but not admitted to an intensive care unit) with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class III or IV CAP requiring intravenous therapy were randomized to ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 h for 5-7 days. Patients in FOCUS 1 received 2 doses of oral clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 h on day 1. In the individual trials, clinical cure rates in the clinically evaluable (CE) population for ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone were as follows: FOCUS 1, 86.6% vs 78.2% (difference, 8.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-15.4%); FOCUS 2, 82.1% vs 77.2% (difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 12.5%). In the integrated analysis, 614 patients received ceftaroline and 614 received ceftriaxone. Of the CE patients treated with ceftaroline, 84.3% achieved clinical cure, compared with 77.7% of ceftriaxone-treated patients (difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-11.8%). Clinical cure rates in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population were 82.6% versus 76.6% for ceftaroline and ceftriaxone (difference, 6.0%; 95% CI, 1.4%-10.7%). Ceftaroline and ceftriaxone were well tolerated; rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, deaths, and premature discontinuations caused by an adverse event were similar in both treatment arms. Ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone in the individual trials. In this integrated analysis, clinical cure rates for the ceftaroline group were numerically higher than those for the ceftriaxone group. Ceftaroline was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of ceftriaxone.