首页> 外文期刊>Clinical infectious diseases >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.
【24h】

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.

机译:对FOCUS 1和FOCUS 2的综合分析:头孢洛林fosamil与头孢曲松治疗社区获得性肺炎的有效性和安全性的随机,双盲,多中心3期临床试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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.
机译:背景:头孢洛林是头孢洛林fosamil的活性形式,是一种广谱头孢菌素,对引起社区获得性肺炎(CAP)的病原体(包括肺炎链球菌)具有杀菌活性。头孢洛林在两项随机,双盲,多中心试验中评估了CAP的治疗:头孢洛林社区获得性肺炎试验与头孢曲松钠在住院患者(FOCUS)1和FOCUS 2中的应用。方法:住院患者(但未入住重症监护病房) )患有肺炎结果研究小组的需要静脉注射治疗的风险为III级或IV级的CAP被随机分配到头孢洛林每12小时600 mg或头孢曲松钠每24小时1 g,持续5-7天。在FOCUS 1中的患者在第1天每12小时接受2剂口服口服克拉霉素500 mg。结果:在个别试验中,头孢洛林和头孢曲松的临床可评估(CE)人群的临床治愈率如下:FOCUS 1,86.6% vs 78.2%(差异8.4%; 95%置信区间[CI],1.4%-15.4%);聚焦2,82.1%对77.2%(差异4.9%; 95%CI,-2.5%至12.5%)。在综合分析中,614例患者接受了头孢洛林治疗,614例接受了头孢曲松治疗。在接受头孢洛林治疗的CE患者中,有84.3%的患者达到了临床治愈率,而头孢曲松治疗的患者为77.7%(差异为6.7%; 95%CI为1.6%-11.8%)。经改良的意向治疗功效人群的临床治愈率为82.6%,而头孢他林和头孢曲松的治愈率为76.6%(差异为6.0%; 95%CI为1.4%-10.7%)。头孢洛林和头孢曲松的耐受性良好。在两个治疗组中,不良事件,严重不良事件,死亡和由不良事件引起的提前停药的发生率相似。结论:头孢洛林在各个试验中均不低于头孢曲松。在这项综合分析中,头孢洛林组的临床治愈率在数值上高于头孢曲松组。头孢洛林耐受性良好,安全性与头孢曲松相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号