-
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2024Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Female; Aged; Middle Aged; Male; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Outpatients; Hospitalization; Europe
PubMed: 37306992
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0699 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
Journal of Neurology Oct 2023To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and related entities.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials from December 2022 to February 2023. Studies on the efficacy and safety of ASM monotherapies or adjunctive therapies for IGEs and related entities-including juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), juvenile absence epilepsy, or generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (GTCA)-were included. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining seizure free for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; safety outcomes were the proportions of any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Network meta-analyses were performed in a random-effects model to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Rankings of ASMs were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study is registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022372358).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials containing 4282 patients were included. As monotherapies, all ASMs were more effective than placebo, and valproate and ethosuximide were significantly better than lamotrigine. According to the SUCRA for efficacy, ethosuximide ranked first for CAE, whereas valproate ranked first for other types of IGEs. As adjunctive therapies, topiramate ranked best for GTCA as well as overall for IGEs, while levetiracetam ranked best for myoclonic seizures. For safety, perampanel ranked best (measured by any TEAE).
CONCLUSIONS
All of the studied ASMs were more effective than placebo. Valproate monotherapy ranked best overall for IGEs, whereas ethosuximide ranked best for CAE. Adjunctive topiramate and levetiracetam were most effective for GTCA and myoclonic seizures, respectively. Furthermore, perampanel had the best tolerability.
Topics: Humans; Child; Valproic Acid; Topiramate; Network Meta-Analysis; Levetiracetam; Ethosuximide; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy, Generalized; Seizures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37378757
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11834-8 -
Supportive care and antiviral treatments in primary herpetic gingivostomatitis: a systematic review.Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2023Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (PHGS), often a self-limiting infection; however, it can limit the ability to drink/eat with, sometimes, the need for hospitalization. Multiple therapeutic methods have been proposed. This systematic review aims to collect and critically appraise the available evidence about the clinical management of PHGS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search including three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase), study design, and data analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines, according to the PICO tool (PROSPERO n° CRD42023391386). Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I.
RESULTS
Five studies on a total of 364 patients (average age: 7.6 years) were identified. The treatment regimens were summarized in acyclovir; acyclovir + honey; fluids and analgesic; maalox + diphenhydramine; lidocaine; chlorhexidine (CHX); CHX + ialuronic acid; CHX + Mucosyte®; antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT); topical antiviral; topical antiviral + aPDT; and others.
CONCLUSIONS
Although PHGS is a disease with a high worldwide prevalence, the lack of consensus about therapeutic management indicates gaps in existing evidence. Most of the proposed treatment consists in symptomatic drugs with empiric regimens which are ineffective for the viral replication. The main limit to realize randomized clinical trial is due to the rapid onset and remission of the disease. In fact, the diagnostic delay, estimated in 72 h, decreases the effectiveness of any antiviral drugs.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Out of the five studies included in this systematic review, only one was able to provide some weak evidence that ACV is an effective treatment, improving healing of oral lesions and reducing duration of symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Child; Stomatitis, Herpetic; Delayed Diagnosis; Antiviral Agents; Acyclovir; Lidocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37733027
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05250-5 -
JAMA Oct 2023Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cough; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Sulfonamides; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease; Taste
PubMed: 37694849
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.18035 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2024Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus).
OBJECTIVES
To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib).
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review.
METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources.
RESULTS
Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost.
CONCLUSIONS
The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations.
FUTURE WORK AND LIMITATIONS
The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Child; Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Child, Preschool; Dermatitis, Atopic; Cyclosporine; State Medicine; Treatment Outcome; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Eczema; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Purines; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Sulfonamides; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Azetidines
PubMed: 38343072
DOI: 10.3310/LEXB9006 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
BACKGROUND
Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance.
RESULTS
Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Dexmedetomidine; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Craniotomy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37417808
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001877 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Jul 2023Menstrual migraine is a subtype of migraine disease that is typically more disabling, longer-lasting, and more challenging to treat. The purpose of this network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Menstrual migraine is a subtype of migraine disease that is typically more disabling, longer-lasting, and more challenging to treat. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the relative efficacy of treatments for menstrual migraine.
METHODS
We systematically searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, and included all eligible randomized controlled trials in the study. We conducted the statistical analysis using Stata version 14.0, based on the frequentist framework. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB2) to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.
RESULTS
This network meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with 4601 patients. For short-term prophylaxis, frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily had the highest probability of effectiveness [OR = 1.87 (95% CI: 1.48 to 2.38)] compared to placebo. For acute treatment, the results showed that sumatriptan 100 mg [OR = 4.32 (95% CI: 2.95 to 6.34)] was the most effective treatment compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings suggest that frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily was best for short-term prevention, sumatriptan 100 mg were best for acute treatment. More high-quality randomized trials are required to determine the most effective treatment.
Topics: Humans; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Migraine Disorders; Tryptamines
PubMed: 37400775
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01625-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Amides; Pyrazines
PubMed: 38314855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015219.pub2 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2023Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated... (Review)
Review
Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated with severe disease and high mortality rates. Standard recommended treatments for empiric and targeted coverage of suspected MRSA in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), are vancomycin and linezolid. However, adverse events such as acute kidney injury and infection have been associated with these antibiotics. Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam/extended-spectrum cephalosporin approved for the treatment of adults and children with CAP and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ceftaroline has activity against a range of common Gram-positive bacteria and is distinct among the β-lactams in retaining activity against MRSA. Due to the design of the pivotal randomised controlled trials of ceftaroline fosamil, outcomes in patients with MRSA CAP were not evaluated. However, various reports of real-world outcomes with ceftaroline fosamil for pneumonia caused by MRSA, including CAP and HAP/VAP, been published since its approval. A systematic literature review and qualitative analysis of relevant publications was undertaken to collate and summarise relevant published data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with MRSA pneumonia. While relatively few real-world outcomes studies are available, the available data suggest that ceftaroline fosamil is a possible alternative to linezolid and vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia. Specific scenarios in which ceftaroline fosamil might be considered include bacteraemia and complicating factors such as empyema.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Linezolid; Vancomycin; Cephalosporins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Ceftaroline
PubMed: 37852658
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0117-2023