4.7 Article

Ceftaroline fosamil doses and b breakpoints for Staphylococcus aureus in complicated skin and soft tissue infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 425-431

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky439

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. AstraZeneca [NCT01499277, NCT01371838, NCT01458743, NCT01612507, NCT01664065]
  3. Pfizer
  4. Allergan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To describe the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modelling and microbiological data that were used to support the recent European approval of ceftaroline fosa mil 600 mg q8h by 2 h intravenous (iv) infusion for patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by Staphylococcus oureus with ceftaroline MICs of 2 or 4 mg/L, and the associated EUCAST MIC breakpoint update for q8h dosing (intermediate 2 mg/L and resistant >2 mg/L). Methods: A population PK model for ceftaroline and ceftaroline fosamil was developed using PK data from 21 clinical studies. The final model was used to simulate PTA in patients with cSSTI receiving ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h by 1 h iv infusion or 600 mg q8h by 2 h iv infusion. PTA was calculated by MIC for S. aureus PK/PD targets derived from preclinical studies (27% fT(>MIC) for stasis, 31% fT(>MIC) for 1 log(10) kill and 35% fT(>MIC) for 2 logio kill) and compared with S. aureus ceftaroline MIC distributions from a 2013 global surveillance study. Results: The final population PK model based on 951 subjects adequately described ceftaroline and ceftaroline fosamil PK. High PTA (>90%) was predicted for the ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg ql2h dosage regimen against S. aureus isolates with ceftaroline MICs <= 2 mg/L. Greater than 90% PTA was predicted for the ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q8h dosage regimen against S. aureus with ceftaroline MICs <= 4 mg/L. Conclusions: The approved ceftaroline fosamil dosage regimens for adults and adolescents with cSSTI achieve high PTA against S. aureus at the associated EUCAST breakpoints.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据