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.

Title

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.

Creator

File Thomas M Jr; Low Donald E; Eckburg Paul B; Talbot George H; Friedland H David; Lee Jon; Llorens Lily; Critchley Ian; Thye Dirk

Publisher

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Date

2010
2010-12

Description

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Subject

80 and over; Administration; Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents/*administration & dosage/*adverse effects; Bacterial/*drug therapy; Ceftriaxone/*administration & dosage/*adverse effects; Cephalosporins/*administration & dosage/*adverse effects; Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Infusions; Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Oral; Pneumonia; Treatment Outcome

Identifier

Rights

Article information provided for research and reference use only. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).

Pages

1395–1405

Issue

12

Volume

51

Citation

File Thomas M Jr; Low Donald E; Eckburg Paul B; Talbot George H; Friedland H David; Lee Jon; Llorens Lily; Critchley Ian; Thye Dirk, “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.,” NEOMED Bibliography Database, accessed September 17, 2021, https://neomed.omeka.net/items/show/4146.

Social Bookmarking