RESUMO
Background: Pharmacodynamic models support potential improved antimicrobial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic goal attainment in patients treated with extended-infusion (EI) versus intermittent-infusion (II) cefepime. Small clinical studies demonstrate inconsistent findings in patient outcomes, necessitating a deeper review of this administration method. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients receiving EI versus II cefepime between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary objectives included length of hospital and ICU stay, time to defervescence, duration of therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and readmission rate. Subgroup analyses for the primary objective were conducted based on comorbid burden and isolate susceptibilities. Results: No statistically significant differences were noted in the 645 included patients for the primary outcome between the EI and II groups (7.8% vs 10.4%, P = .32). Median length of stay was 9 days (IQR 12) versus 11 days (IQR 14) (P = .30), respectively. In addition, statistical significance was not seen in any of the subgroups for the primary outcome including patients with APACHE II score ≥ 20 (17.4% vs 30.6%, P = .26) and for infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.9% vs 20.0%, P = .23) or Enterobacteriaceae (11.1% vs 20.0%, P = .13) with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥ 4. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were noted between EI and II groups, although benefits in specific subpopulations may exist when these results are correlated with findings from studies examining alternative antipseudomonal beta lactams.
RESUMO
This is a single-center retrospective observational cohort study comparing daptomycin/ceftaroline combination therapy with rifampin-adjunct therapy for the treatment of staphylococcal device infections. The results of this study support use of the daptomycin/ceftaroline as an alternative or salvage option to standard of care.
RESUMO
Ceftaroline is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, including cases with concurrent bacteremia. Use for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections has risen for a multitude of reasons. The aim of this article is to review the literature evaluating clinical outcomes and safety of ceftaroline prescribed for serious MRSA infections. We conducted a literature search in Ovid (Medline) and PubMed for reputable case reports, clinical trials, and reviews focusing on the use of ceftaroline for treatment of MRSA infections. Twenty-two manuscripts published between 2010 and 2016 met inclusion criteria. Mean clinical cure was 74% across 379 patients treated with ceftaroline for severe MRSA infections. Toxicities were infrequent. Ceftaroline treatment resulted in clinical and microbiologic cure for severe MRSA infections. Close monitoring of hematological parameters is necessary with prolonged courses of ceftaroline.
