Efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in patients aged 65 years or older:a post hoc analysis of three Phase III studies

Lay abstract Infections are a common cause of severe disease and death in older patients. Antibiotic treatment may also be complicated by age-related changes within the body. The present study analyzed results from three large clinical trials that assessed the benefits of the novel antibiotic ceftobiprole in the older population. In patients aged over 65 years with skin infections or with pneumonia acquired either in the community or in a hospital setting, ceftobiprole offered similar benefits to established antibiotics. There was also some preliminary evidence that older patients may respond more quickly to ceftobiprole compared with the other antibiotics used in these studies. Overall, ceftobiprole was well tolerated and will be a useful treatment option for infections in older patients. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in patients aged >= 65 years. Materials & methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of three randomized, double-blind, Phase III studies in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, community-acquired pneumonia and hospital-acquired pneumonia. Results: Findings for patients aged >= 65 years (n = 633) were consistent with those for the overall study populations, although a trend toward improved outcomes was reported in some subgroups, for example, patients aged >= 75 years with community-acquired pneumonia were more likely to achieve an early clinical response with ceftobiprole than comparator (treatment difference 16.3% [95% CI:1.8-30.8]). The safety profile was similar between treatment groups in all studies. Conclusion: This analysis further supports the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in older patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections or pneumonia. Clinicaltrials.gov trial identifiers: , ,

Early improvement in severely ill patients with pneumonia treated with ceftobiprole:a retrospective analysis of two major trials

BackgroundPatients with pneumonia who are elderly or severely ill are at a particularly high risk of mortality. This post hoc retrospective analysis of data from two Phase III studies evaluated early improvement outcomes in subgroups of high-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP, excluding ventilator-associated pneumonia [VAP]).MethodsOne study included hospitalised CAP patients randomised to ceftobiprole or ceftriaxone linezolid treatment. The other study included HAP patients, who were randomised to ceftobiprole or ceftazidime plus linezolid treatment. The primary outcome was rate of early clinical response (Day 3 in CAP and Day 4 in HAP patients). Additional outcome measures included clinical cure at a test-of-cure visit, 30-day all-cause mortality and safety.ResultsThe overall high-risk group comprised 398 CAP patients and 307 HAP patients with risk factors present at baseline. The rate of early response was numerically higher in ceftobiprole-treated patients vs comparator-treated patients in the following high-risk groups: CAP patients aged 75years (16.3% difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 30.8); CAP patients with COPD (20.1% difference, 95% CI: 8.8, 31.1); all high-risk HAP patients (12.5% difference, 95% CI: 3.5, 21.4); HAP patients with >10 baseline comorbidities (15.3% difference, 95% CI: 0.3, 30.4).ConclusionsPrevious studies show that ceftobiprole is an efficacious therapy for patients with pneumonia who are at high risk of poor outcomes. This post hoc analysis provides preliminary evidence that ceftobiprole treatment may have advantages over other antibiotics in terms of achieving early improvement in high-risk patients with HAP (excluding VAP) and in some subgroups of high-risk CAP patients.Trial registration NCT00210964: registered September 21, 2005; NCT00229008: registered September 29, 2005; NCT00326287: registered May 16, 2006

Ceftobiprole versus daptomycin in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a novel protocol for a double-blind, Phase III trial

Although Staphylococcus aureus is a common cause of bacteremia, treatment options are limited. The need for new therapies is particularly urgent for methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacteremia (SAB). Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation, broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant S. aureus. This is a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, two-part study to establish the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole compared with daptomycin in the treatment of SAB, including infective endocarditis. Anticipated enrollment is 390 hospitalized adult patients, aged >= 18 years, with confirmed or suspected complicated SAB. The primary end point is overall success rate. Target completion of the study is in the second half of 2021. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT0313873

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease in a phase III trial comparing isavuconazole vs voriconazole

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease (IMD; 2008 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group [EORTC/MSG] criteria) needed further assessment. The Phase III SECURE trial compared isavuconazole vs voriconazole for treatment of IMD. This post hoc analysis assessed all-cause mortality (ACM) through day 42 (primary endpoint) and day 84, overall and clinical success at end of treatment (EOT), and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in subgroups with proven/probable or possible IMD. Of 516 randomised patients, 304 (58.9%) had proven/probable IMD and 164 (31.8%) had possible IMD as per EORTC/MSG criteria; 48 did not have IMD. Across treatment groups, day 42 and day 84 ACM were numerically lower for possible vs proven/probable IMD (day 42: 17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.3, day 84: 26.2% vs 32.6%; P = 0.15). Overall and clinical success at EOT were significantly higher for possible IMD compared with proven/probable IMD (48.2% vs 36.2%; P = 0.01, 75.0% vs 63.1%; P = 0.01 respectively). Fewer drug-related TEAEs were reported with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole in patients with either proven/probable or possible IMD. Compared with patients with proven/probable IMD, those with possible IMD demonstrated higher overall and clinical success rates, supporting early initiation of antifungal treatment.status: publishe