Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort
Background: To compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients. Methods: This comparative, observational, retrospective, and multicenter Spanish study included patients receiving...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Antibiotics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/12/12/1692 |
| _version_ | 1827575928595677184 |
|---|---|
| author | Daniel Arnés García Inés Pitto-Robles Jorge Calderón Parra Marina Calvo Salvador Carmen Herrero Rodríguez Laura Gisbert Carmen Hidalgo-Tenorio |
| author_facet | Daniel Arnés García Inés Pitto-Robles Jorge Calderón Parra Marina Calvo Salvador Carmen Herrero Rodríguez Laura Gisbert Carmen Hidalgo-Tenorio |
| author_sort | Daniel Arnés García |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: To compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients. Methods: This comparative, observational, retrospective, and multicenter Spanish study included patients receiving outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospitalized patients treated for at least 48 h with ceftaroline-F or ceftobiprole-M between their first incorporation in the clinical protocol of each hospital and 31 July 2022. Results: Ceftaroline-F was administered to 227 patients and ceftobiprole-M to 212. In comparison to the latter, ceftaroline-F-treated participants were younger (63.02 vs. 66.40 years, OR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.001–1.05) and had higher rates of septic shock (OR 0.27; 95%CI: 0.09–0.81) and higher frequencies of targeted (57.7 vs. 29.7%; OR: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18–0.69) and combined (89.0 vs. 45.8%, OR: 0.13; 95%CI: 0.06–0.28) therapies that were second line or more (82.4% vs. 64.6%%; OR 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18–0.69), and higher rates of infections due to Gram-positive cocci (92.7 vs. 64.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.001), bacteremia (51.9 vs. 21.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.001), infective endocarditis (24.2 vs. 2.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001), and mechanical ventilation-associated pneumonia (8.8 vs. 2.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001). Ceftobiprole-M was more frequently administered against polymicrobial infections (38.1 vs. 14.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.001), those produced by Gram-negative bacilli (19.7 vs. 6.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001), nosocomial pneumonia (33 vs. 10.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001), and skin and soft-tissue infections (25.4 vs. 10.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001). Patients treated with ceftaroline-F had a longer hospital stay (36 (IQR: 19–60) vs. 19.50 (IQR: 12–30.75, <i>p</i> = 0.0001) days), with no difference in infection-related mortality at 14 (13.2 vs. 8.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.078) or 28 (4.8 vs. 3.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.415) days or in dropout rate for adverse effects (2.2 vs. 0.9%; <i>p</i> = 1). Conclusions: The fifth-generation cephalosporins, ceftaroline-F and ceftobiprole-M, are safe and effective in real life, with no difference between them in health outcomes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T21:03:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bb9011a95e8742a7a06ae4db48e1e755 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2079-6382 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T21:03:54Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Antibiotics |
| spelling | doaj.art-bb9011a95e8742a7a06ae4db48e1e7552023-12-22T13:47:55ZengMDPI AGAntibiotics2079-63822023-12-011212169210.3390/antibiotics12121692Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital CohortDaniel Arnés García0Inés Pitto-Robles1Jorge Calderón Parra2Marina Calvo Salvador3Carmen Herrero Rodríguez4Laura Gisbert5Carmen Hidalgo-Tenorio6Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, 18014 Granada, SpainServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, 18014 Granada, SpainUnidad Enfermedades Infecciosas, Hospital Puerta de Hierro de Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, SpainServicio de Farmacia, Hospital Puerta de Hierro de Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, SpainUnidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, 23007 Jaén, SpainUnidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Hospital Universitario Mútua de Terrassa, 08221 Barcelona, SpainUnidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitario de Granada (IBS-Granada), 18014 Granada, SpainBackground: To compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients. Methods: This comparative, observational, retrospective, and multicenter Spanish study included patients receiving outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospitalized patients treated for at least 48 h with ceftaroline-F or ceftobiprole-M between their first incorporation in the clinical protocol of each hospital and 31 July 2022. Results: Ceftaroline-F was administered to 227 patients and ceftobiprole-M to 212. In comparison to the latter, ceftaroline-F-treated participants were younger (63.02 vs. 66.40 years, OR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.001–1.05) and had higher rates of septic shock (OR 0.27; 95%CI: 0.09–0.81) and higher frequencies of targeted (57.7 vs. 29.7%; OR: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18–0.69) and combined (89.0 vs. 45.8%, OR: 0.13; 95%CI: 0.06–0.28) therapies that were second line or more (82.4% vs. 64.6%%; OR 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18–0.69), and higher rates of infections due to Gram-positive cocci (92.7 vs. 64.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.001), bacteremia (51.9 vs. 21.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.001), infective endocarditis (24.2 vs. 2.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001), and mechanical ventilation-associated pneumonia (8.8 vs. 2.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001). Ceftobiprole-M was more frequently administered against polymicrobial infections (38.1 vs. 14.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.001), those produced by Gram-negative bacilli (19.7 vs. 6.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001), nosocomial pneumonia (33 vs. 10.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001), and skin and soft-tissue infections (25.4 vs. 10.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.0001). Patients treated with ceftaroline-F had a longer hospital stay (36 (IQR: 19–60) vs. 19.50 (IQR: 12–30.75, <i>p</i> = 0.0001) days), with no difference in infection-related mortality at 14 (13.2 vs. 8.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.078) or 28 (4.8 vs. 3.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.415) days or in dropout rate for adverse effects (2.2 vs. 0.9%; <i>p</i> = 1). Conclusions: The fifth-generation cephalosporins, ceftaroline-F and ceftobiprole-M, are safe and effective in real life, with no difference between them in health outcomes.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/12/12/1692ceftaroline fosamilceftobiprole medocarilendocarditismortalityOPAT |
| spellingShingle | Daniel Arnés García Inés Pitto-Robles Jorge Calderón Parra Marina Calvo Salvador Carmen Herrero Rodríguez Laura Gisbert Carmen Hidalgo-Tenorio Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort Antibiotics ceftaroline fosamil ceftobiprole medocaril endocarditis mortality OPAT |
| title | Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort |
| title_full | Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort |
| title_fullStr | Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort |
| title_short | Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort |
| title_sort | ceft to ceft study real life experience with ceftaroline and ceftobiprole in treatment of the principal infectious syndromes in a spanish multicenter hospital cohort |
| topic | ceftaroline fosamil ceftobiprole medocaril endocarditis mortality OPAT |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/12/12/1692 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT danielarnesgarcia cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort AT inespittorobles cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort AT jorgecalderonparra cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort AT marinacalvosalvador cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort AT carmenherrerorodriguez cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort AT lauragisbert cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort AT carmenhidalgotenorio cefttoceftstudyreallifeexperiencewithceftarolineandceftobiproleintreatmentoftheprincipalinfectioussyndromesinaspanishmulticenterhospitalcohort |