Loading…
4CPS-028 Experience of ceftaroline use in a third level hospital
Background and importanceCeftaroline is approved for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), and community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there is growing evidence that other severe methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections could be treated with ceftaroline.Aim and...
Saved in:
Published in: | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice 2020-03, Vol.27 (Suppl 1), p.A60-A60 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | A60 |
container_issue | Suppl 1 |
container_start_page | A60 |
container_title | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Canales, D Caro Teller, JM Martínez De La Torre, F Arrieta Loitegui, M Rosas, C Ortiz Pérez, S Ferrari Piquero, JM |
description | Background and importanceCeftaroline is approved for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), and community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there is growing evidence that other severe methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections could be treated with ceftaroline.Aim and objectivesTo evaluate the use of ceftaroline in a tertiary hospital in Spain, as well as its effectiveness and safety.Material and methodsA retrospective observational study including all patients treated with ceftaroline in our hospital (November 2017–September 2019) was carried out. Demographic, clinical and safety variables were collected. Effectiveness was assessed by the clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection, and the absence of hospital admissions for the same infection after receiving ceftaroline.ResultsThirty patients received treatment (76.7% men, n=23). All patients were adults except one. Mean age of the adults was 68.4.1±17.6 years (the paediatric patient was 3 months old).The most common indication for ceftaroline was bacteraemia (60.7%, n=20): 8 were due to cSSSI, in 8 its origin was unknown, 2 were due to CAP and 2 were due to catheter associated infections. The other indications were endocarditis (13.2%, n=4), cSSSI (10%, n=3), hospital acquired pneumonia (6.7%, n=2) and osteomyelitis (3.2%, n=1). Infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus (93.2%, n=28) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=2). In 76.7% (n=23) of cases the infections were caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms.Dosage was: 600 mg/8 hours (63.2%, n=19), 400 mg/8 hours (20%, n=6), 600 mg/12 hours (6.7%, n=2), 600 mg/6 hours (3.2%, n=1), 200 mg/12 hours (3.2%,n=1) and in the paediatric patient 8 mg/kg/8 hours. Median duration of treatment was 11.7 (5.2–14.7) days.A total of 76.7% of patients (n=23) presented clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection. However, four patients were readmitted for treatment of the same infection during the follow-up period.Serious adverse effects related to ceftaroline were reported in one patient: it was necessary to withdraw treatment because of severe thrombopenia, with a platelet count of 84×1000/µL (previously 149×1000/µL).Conclusion and relevanceIn most of our patients, ceftaroline was used in infections caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms although there were some ‘off-label’ indications. Our results suggest that ceftaroline is safe and effective in severe methicillin resistant infections with fe |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-eahpconf.129 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_bmj_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2382936660</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2382936660</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1269-2da421f006c935118c418485a7af1acf3b9116cd703deefada523f11b7be57c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo90M1Kw0AUBeBBFCy17zDoOnXu_CWz1FJ_oKCgrofJ5A6ZkiZxkoru3PiiPoktWlfnLA73wkfIObA5gNCXuK772qVNxhlnGbq6910b5sDNEZlwJvPMGC2P_7vSp2Q2DLFkSojCSGEm5FouHp8yxovvz6_le48pYuuRdoF6DKNLXRNbpNsBaWypo2MdU0UbfMOG1t3Qx9E1Z-QkuGbA2V9OycvN8nlxl60ebu8XV6usBK5NxisnOQTGtDdCARReQiEL5XIXwPkgSgOgfZUzUSEGVznFRQAo8xJV7qWYkovfu33qXrc4jHbdbVO7e2m5KLgRWmu2W6nfVblZ2z7FjUsfFpjdi9mDmN2L2YOY3YmJH13PY44</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2382936660</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>4CPS-028 Experience of ceftaroline use in a third level hospital</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Canales, D ; Caro Teller, JM ; Martínez De La Torre, F ; Arrieta Loitegui, M ; Rosas, C ; Ortiz Pérez, S ; Ferrari Piquero, JM</creator><creatorcontrib>Canales, D ; Caro Teller, JM ; Martínez De La Torre, F ; Arrieta Loitegui, M ; Rosas, C ; Ortiz Pérez, S ; Ferrari Piquero, JM</creatorcontrib><description>Background and importanceCeftaroline is approved for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), and community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there is growing evidence that other severe methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections could be treated with ceftaroline.Aim and objectivesTo evaluate the use of ceftaroline in a tertiary hospital in Spain, as well as its effectiveness and safety.Material and methodsA retrospective observational study including all patients treated with ceftaroline in our hospital (November 2017–September 2019) was carried out. Demographic, clinical and safety variables were collected. Effectiveness was assessed by the clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection, and the absence of hospital admissions for the same infection after receiving ceftaroline.ResultsThirty patients received treatment (76.7% men, n=23). All patients were adults except one. Mean age of the adults was 68.4.1±17.6 years (the paediatric patient was 3 months old).The most common indication for ceftaroline was bacteraemia (60.7%, n=20): 8 were due to cSSSI, in 8 its origin was unknown, 2 were due to CAP and 2 were due to catheter associated infections. The other indications were endocarditis (13.2%, n=4), cSSSI (10%, n=3), hospital acquired pneumonia (6.7%, n=2) and osteomyelitis (3.2%, n=1). Infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus (93.2%, n=28) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=2). In 76.7% (n=23) of cases the infections were caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms.Dosage was: 600 mg/8 hours (63.2%, n=19), 400 mg/8 hours (20%, n=6), 600 mg/12 hours (6.7%, n=2), 600 mg/6 hours (3.2%, n=1), 200 mg/12 hours (3.2%,n=1) and in the paediatric patient 8 mg/kg/8 hours. Median duration of treatment was 11.7 (5.2–14.7) days.A total of 76.7% of patients (n=23) presented clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection. However, four patients were readmitted for treatment of the same infection during the follow-up period.Serious adverse effects related to ceftaroline were reported in one patient: it was necessary to withdraw treatment because of severe thrombopenia, with a platelet count of 84×1000/µL (previously 149×1000/µL).Conclusion and relevanceIn most of our patients, ceftaroline was used in infections caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms although there were some ‘off-label’ indications. Our results suggest that ceftaroline is safe and effective in severe methicillin resistant infections with few treatment options due to multiresistance.References and/or acknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-9956</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-eahpconf.129</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Infections ; Microorganisms ; Patients ; Pneumonia</subject><ispartof>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2020-03, Vol.27 (Suppl 1), p.A60-A60</ispartof><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>2020 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Canales, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caro Teller, JM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez De La Torre, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arrieta Loitegui, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosas, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ortiz Pérez, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrari Piquero, JM</creatorcontrib><title>4CPS-028 Experience of ceftaroline use in a third level hospital</title><title>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</title><description>Background and importanceCeftaroline is approved for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), and community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there is growing evidence that other severe methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections could be treated with ceftaroline.Aim and objectivesTo evaluate the use of ceftaroline in a tertiary hospital in Spain, as well as its effectiveness and safety.Material and methodsA retrospective observational study including all patients treated with ceftaroline in our hospital (November 2017–September 2019) was carried out. Demographic, clinical and safety variables were collected. Effectiveness was assessed by the clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection, and the absence of hospital admissions for the same infection after receiving ceftaroline.ResultsThirty patients received treatment (76.7% men, n=23). All patients were adults except one. Mean age of the adults was 68.4.1±17.6 years (the paediatric patient was 3 months old).The most common indication for ceftaroline was bacteraemia (60.7%, n=20): 8 were due to cSSSI, in 8 its origin was unknown, 2 were due to CAP and 2 were due to catheter associated infections. The other indications were endocarditis (13.2%, n=4), cSSSI (10%, n=3), hospital acquired pneumonia (6.7%, n=2) and osteomyelitis (3.2%, n=1). Infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus (93.2%, n=28) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=2). In 76.7% (n=23) of cases the infections were caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms.Dosage was: 600 mg/8 hours (63.2%, n=19), 400 mg/8 hours (20%, n=6), 600 mg/12 hours (6.7%, n=2), 600 mg/6 hours (3.2%, n=1), 200 mg/12 hours (3.2%,n=1) and in the paediatric patient 8 mg/kg/8 hours. Median duration of treatment was 11.7 (5.2–14.7) days.A total of 76.7% of patients (n=23) presented clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection. However, four patients were readmitted for treatment of the same infection during the follow-up period.Serious adverse effects related to ceftaroline were reported in one patient: it was necessary to withdraw treatment because of severe thrombopenia, with a platelet count of 84×1000/µL (previously 149×1000/µL).Conclusion and relevanceIn most of our patients, ceftaroline was used in infections caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms although there were some ‘off-label’ indications. Our results suggest that ceftaroline is safe and effective in severe methicillin resistant infections with few treatment options due to multiresistance.References and/or acknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.</description><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pneumonia</subject><issn>2047-9956</issn><issn>2047-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo90M1Kw0AUBeBBFCy17zDoOnXu_CWz1FJ_oKCgrofJ5A6ZkiZxkoru3PiiPoktWlfnLA73wkfIObA5gNCXuK772qVNxhlnGbq6910b5sDNEZlwJvPMGC2P_7vSp2Q2DLFkSojCSGEm5FouHp8yxovvz6_le48pYuuRdoF6DKNLXRNbpNsBaWypo2MdU0UbfMOG1t3Qx9E1Z-QkuGbA2V9OycvN8nlxl60ebu8XV6usBK5NxisnOQTGtDdCARReQiEL5XIXwPkgSgOgfZUzUSEGVznFRQAo8xJV7qWYkovfu33qXrc4jHbdbVO7e2m5KLgRWmu2W6nfVblZ2z7FjUsfFpjdi9mDmN2L2YOY3YmJH13PY44</recordid><startdate>202003</startdate><enddate>202003</enddate><creator>Canales, D</creator><creator>Caro Teller, JM</creator><creator>Martínez De La Torre, F</creator><creator>Arrieta Loitegui, M</creator><creator>Rosas, C</creator><creator>Ortiz Pérez, S</creator><creator>Ferrari Piquero, JM</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202003</creationdate><title>4CPS-028 Experience of ceftaroline use in a third level hospital</title><author>Canales, D ; Caro Teller, JM ; Martínez De La Torre, F ; Arrieta Loitegui, M ; Rosas, C ; Ortiz Pérez, S ; Ferrari Piquero, JM</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1269-2da421f006c935118c418485a7af1acf3b9116cd703deefada523f11b7be57c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pneumonia</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Canales, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caro Teller, JM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez De La Torre, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arrieta Loitegui, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosas, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ortiz Pérez, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrari Piquero, JM</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Canales, D</au><au>Caro Teller, JM</au><au>Martínez De La Torre, F</au><au>Arrieta Loitegui, M</au><au>Rosas, C</au><au>Ortiz Pérez, S</au><au>Ferrari Piquero, JM</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>4CPS-028 Experience of ceftaroline use in a third level hospital</atitle><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle><date>2020-03</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A60</spage><epage>A60</epage><pages>A60-A60</pages><issn>2047-9956</issn><eissn>2047-9964</eissn><abstract>Background and importanceCeftaroline is approved for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), and community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there is growing evidence that other severe methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections could be treated with ceftaroline.Aim and objectivesTo evaluate the use of ceftaroline in a tertiary hospital in Spain, as well as its effectiveness and safety.Material and methodsA retrospective observational study including all patients treated with ceftaroline in our hospital (November 2017–September 2019) was carried out. Demographic, clinical and safety variables were collected. Effectiveness was assessed by the clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection, and the absence of hospital admissions for the same infection after receiving ceftaroline.ResultsThirty patients received treatment (76.7% men, n=23). All patients were adults except one. Mean age of the adults was 68.4.1±17.6 years (the paediatric patient was 3 months old).The most common indication for ceftaroline was bacteraemia (60.7%, n=20): 8 were due to cSSSI, in 8 its origin was unknown, 2 were due to CAP and 2 were due to catheter associated infections. The other indications were endocarditis (13.2%, n=4), cSSSI (10%, n=3), hospital acquired pneumonia (6.7%, n=2) and osteomyelitis (3.2%, n=1). Infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus (93.2%, n=28) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=2). In 76.7% (n=23) of cases the infections were caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms.Dosage was: 600 mg/8 hours (63.2%, n=19), 400 mg/8 hours (20%, n=6), 600 mg/12 hours (6.7%, n=2), 600 mg/6 hours (3.2%, n=1), 200 mg/12 hours (3.2%,n=1) and in the paediatric patient 8 mg/kg/8 hours. Median duration of treatment was 11.7 (5.2–14.7) days.A total of 76.7% of patients (n=23) presented clinical and microbiological resolution of the infection. However, four patients were readmitted for treatment of the same infection during the follow-up period.Serious adverse effects related to ceftaroline were reported in one patient: it was necessary to withdraw treatment because of severe thrombopenia, with a platelet count of 84×1000/µL (previously 149×1000/µL).Conclusion and relevanceIn most of our patients, ceftaroline was used in infections caused by methicillin resistant microorganisms although there were some ‘off-label’ indications. Our results suggest that ceftaroline is safe and effective in severe methicillin resistant infections with few treatment options due to multiresistance.References and/or acknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-eahpconf.129</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2047-9956 |
ispartof | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2020-03, Vol.27 (Suppl 1), p.A60-A60 |
issn | 2047-9956 2047-9964 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2382936660 |
source | PubMed Central |
subjects | Infections Microorganisms Patients Pneumonia |
title | 4CPS-028 Experience of ceftaroline use in a third level hospital |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T23%3A35%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_bmj_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=4CPS-028%E2%80%85Experience%20of%20ceftaroline%20use%20in%20a%20third%20level%20hospital&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20hospital%20pharmacy.%20Science%20and%20practice&rft.au=Canales,%20D&rft.date=2020-03&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A60&rft.epage=A60&rft.pages=A60-A60&rft.issn=2047-9956&rft.eissn=2047-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-eahpconf.129&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_bmj_p%3E2382936660%3C/proquest_bmj_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1269-2da421f006c935118c418485a7af1acf3b9116cd703deefada523f11b7be57c43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2382936660&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |