Efficacy and safety of ceftaroline: systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:6
|
作者
Rosanova, Maria T. [1 ]
Aguilar, Pedro S. [2 ]
Sberna, Norma [1 ]
Lede, Roberto [3 ]
机构
[1] Hosp JP Garrahan, Barragan601, RA-1408 Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[2] Red Invest Serv Salud Enfermedades Cron REDISSEC, SESCS, Tenerife, Spain
[3] Univ Abierta Interamer, Hosp Univ, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
关键词
Ceftaroline; systematic review; soft tissue infection; efficacy; safety;
D O I
10.1177/2049936118808655
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Background: Resistance to antibiotics is steadily increasing. Ceftaroline has a broad spectrum of activity against clinically relevant gram-positive strains including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Objectives: This systematic review was conducted to evaluate whether ceftaroline is effective and safe, leading to a lower rate of treatment failures than comparators. Material and methods: Studies were included if they were comparing the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline with other antibiotics. Data sources: Using the search terms 'ceftaroline' or 'ceftaroline fosamil', a search strategy was developed. The efficacy endpoint was the rate of treatment failure, while the safety endpoint was the incidence of adverse events. Heterogeneity bias was estimated using the Q-test, and publication bias was estimated using Egger's test. Null hypothesis was rejected if p value was less than 0.05. Results: Only 10 studies were included. Synthesis of results: The risk of treatment failure was significantly lower for ceftaroline than for comparators, and cumulative meta-analysis showed that the effect size was relevant and precise. Pooled risk ratio was 0.79 (95% confidence interval = 0.65-0.95). The rates of adverse events were similar among the studies, and there were no statistically significant differences between groups. For this endpoint, there was a significant heterogeneity among studies (p = 0.03). Pooled risk ratio for adverse events was 0.98 (95% confidence interval = 0.87-1.10), without a statistical difference. Discussion: The risk of treatment failure was significantly lower for ceftaroline than comparators, while the rate of adverse events was similar. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline including children and adults. A limitation is that no randomized controlled trials were found in non-complicated skin- and soft-tissue infection and non-community-acquired pneumonia infections; only few cases with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolations and no patients admitted to the intensive care unit were evaluated. Interpretation: Ceftaroline may be an option of treatment in complicated skin- and soft-tissue infection and community-acquired pneumonia.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Safety and effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rosanova, M. Teresa
    Sberna, Norma
    Lede, Roberto
    [J]. ARCHIVOS ARGENTINOS DE PEDIATRIA, 2019, 117 (03): : E205 - E210
  • [2] Efficacy and effectiveness of Ceftaroline Fosamil in patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Giovanni Sotgiu
    Stefano Aliberti
    Andrea Gramegna
    Marco Mantero
    Marta Di Pasquale
    Federica Trogu
    Laura Saderi
    Francesco Blasi
    [J]. Respiratory Research, 19
  • [3] Efficacy and effectiveness of Ceftaroline Fosamil in patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sotgiu, Giovanni
    Aliberti, Stefano
    Gramegna, Andrea
    Mantero, Marco
    Di Pasquale, Marta
    Trogu, Federica
    Saderi, Laura
    Blasi, Francesco
    [J]. RESPIRATORY RESEARCH, 2018, 19
  • [4] Efficacy and safety of bromelain: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Leelakanok, Nattawut
    Petchsomrit, Arpa
    Janurai, Thitapa
    Saechan, Charinrat
    Sunsandee, Niti
    [J]. NUTRITION AND HEALTH, 2023, 29 (03) : 479 - 503
  • [5] Efficacy and safety of seprafilm: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mohri, Yasuhiko
    Kusunoki, Masato
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2008, 32 (08) : 1886 - 1887
  • [6] Efficacy and Safety of Seprafilm: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Yasuhiko Mohri
    Masato Kusunoki
    [J]. World Journal of Surgery, 2008, 32 : 1886 - 1887
  • [7] Efficacy and safety of tigecycline: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yahav, Dafna
    Lador, Adi
    Paul, Mical
    Leibovici, Leonard
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2011, 66 (09) : 1963 - 1971
  • [8] Efficacy and safety of cefepime: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yahav, Dafna
    Paul, Mical
    Fraser, Abigail
    Sarid, Nadav
    Leibovici, Leonard
    [J]. LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2007, 7 (05): : 338 - 348
  • [9] Efficacy and safety of daptomycin: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Teresa Rosanova, Maria
    Bes, David
    Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro
    Sberna, Norma
    Herrera-Ramos, Estefania
    Luis Lede, Roberto
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2019, 6
  • [10] Comment on: Efficacy and safety of tigecycline: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Scaglione, Francesco
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2011, 66 (12) : 2892 - 2893