DOCSLIB.ORG

Ceftaroline in the Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: in Vitro Joseph P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ceftaroline in the Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: in Vitro Joseph P EV0128 Contact information: Ceftaroline in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: in vitro Joseph P. Iaconis, Ph.D. AstraZeneca Infection iMed susceptibility of baseline pathogens isolated in a phase III randomised clinical trial 35 Gatehouse Drive Waltham, MA, USA Email: [email protected] Edina Reiszner1, Jane Ambler2, Joseph P. Iaconis1 1 2 AstraZeneca LP, Waltham, MA, USA; Formerly AstraZeneca LP, Waltham, MA, USA • Enrolled patients were randomised 2:1 to receive ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q8h • MIC distributions indicated that ceftaroline demonstrated good in vitro activity against breakpoints of ≤1 mg/L for ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg every 12 h [q12h]). Abstract or vancomycin (weight-based dosing) plus aztreonam 1 g q8h for 5–14 days, key Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens obtained at baseline (Table 2). No patients were enrolled that had infections with S. aureus with ceftaroline with the primary endpoint of clinical cure assessed at a test-of-cure visit 8–15 – The MIC distribution of ceftaroline against S. aureus (Figure 1) for isolates MICs >1 mg/L. days after the last dose of study drug treatment in the modified intention-to-treat Objectives: To evaluate the in vitro activity of ceftaroline (CPT), the active obtained in the COVERS trial trended one dilution lower compared with that – Among non-ESBL producing Enterobacteriaceae, 89.3% were susceptible to (MITT) and clinically evaluable populations. metabolite of the pro-drug ceftaroline fosamil (CPT-F) and comparators of global surveillance conducted in 2012–2013 (modal MICs were 0.25 and ceftaroline. (vancomycin [VA] and aztreonam [AZT]) against baseline pathogens from For all enrolled patients, appropriate cSSTI site specimens and blood samples • 0.5 mg/L respectively). – 81.7% (58/71) of all isolated Enterobacteriaceae had ceftaroline MICs at patients (≥18 years) enrolled in COVERS (CeftarOline versus Vancomycin and were obtained at baseline for culture, Gram-stain and susceptibility testing. – All S. aureus (including MRSA) isolates obtained in COVERS tested with or below the EUCAST and CLSI susceptibility breakpoint of ≤0.5 mg/L for aztrEonam tReating complicated Skin and soft tissue infection [cSSTI]), a Patients with ≥1 bacterial pathogen isolated from either a relevant cSSTI site ceftaroline MICs of ≤1 mg/L (susceptible using both CLSI and EUCAST ceftaroline fosamil 600 mg q12h. Phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, comparative trial in Europe, and/or baseline blood sample, and who met protocol-defined minimum disease North America, Asia, and Latin America (NCT01499277). criteria, were included in the microbiological MITT (mMITT) population. Methods: Baseline specimens were collected from cSSTI patients with • All bacterial pathogens were identified by local laboratories to the genus and Table 2. Ceftaroline MIC distributions of key baseline pathogens isolated from site of skin infection or blood (mMITT population) evidence of systemic inflammatory response or underlying co-morbidities species level using confirmatory identification methods. A central laboratory randomised 2:1 to CPT-F (600 mg q8h) or VA (weight-based dosing regimen) (Covance Central Laboratory Services, IN, USA) confirmed pathogen Number (cumulative %) of pathogens at MIC, mg/L and AZT(1000 mg q8h) for 5–14 days. Isolates were shipped to a central identifications and susceptibility test results. Susceptibility testing was performed ≤ ≥ laboratory (CCLS, USA); bacterial identification, susceptibility testing, including in accordance with CLSI methodology. N 0.008 0.015 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) phenotypic screen and confirmatory S. aureus 217 0 0 0 2 (0.9) 41 (19.8) 121 (75.6) 48 (97.7) 5 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 tests were performed using broth microdilution method (CLSI M100-S21). • The presence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) among Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Proteus mirabilis isolates MSSA 163 0 0 0 2 (1.2) 41 (26.4) 115 (96.9) 5 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Results: A total of 524 baseline isolates cultured from 384 patients (mMITT was determined by CLSI phenotype MIC broth microdilution test and/or the CLSI MRSA 54 0 0 0 0 0 6 (11.1) 43 (90.7) 5 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 population: 248 CPT-F- and 136 VA/AZT-treated patients) diagnosed with ESBL confirmatory MIC broth microdilution test. Streptococcus pyogenes 25 25 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 the following cSSTIs: 141 (36.7%) cellulitis; 72 (18.8%) traumatic or surgical wound infection; 124 (32.3%) major cutaneous abscess; 45 (11.7%) burns; and S. agalactiae 16 3 (18.8) 13 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (0.5%) unidentified source were tested. The predominant pathogens across Results S. dysgalactiae 12 9 (75.0) 2 (91.7) 0 1 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 both treatment arms were Staphylococcus aureus (165 methicillin-susceptible The MITT population comprised 761 patients, from whom 524 bacterial isolates Enterobacteriaceae 71 0 1 (1.4) 11 (16.9) 19 (43.7) 15 (64.8) 10 (78.9) 2 (81.7) 2 (84.5) 2 (87.3) 0 1 (88.7) 4 (94.4) 4 (100.0) [MSSA] and 54 methicillin-resistant [MRSA]), followed by β-haemolytic • were cultured from 384 patients in the mMITT population (ceftaroline fosamil, E. coli 30 0 1 (3.3) 5 (20.0) 7 (43.3) 4 (56.7) 4 (70.0) 2 (76.7) 1 (80.0) 1 (83.3) 0 1 (86.7) 3 (96.7) 1 (100.0) streptococci (25 S. pyogenes, 16 S. agalactiae, 12 S. dysgalactiae), and n=248; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n=136). ESBL-positive 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 (75.0) 1 (100.0) Streptococcus anginosus group. Enterobacteriaceae (namely Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae [KP] and Proteus mirabilis [PM]) were cultured • The incidence of baseline pathogens was generally balanced across the ESBL-negative 26 0 1 (3.8) 5 (23.1) 7 (50.0) 4 (65.4) 4 (80.8) 2 (88.5) 1 (92.3) 1 (96.2) 0 1 (100.0) 0 0 less frequently. CPT has no activity against ESBL-producing strains. Minimum treatment groups (Table 1): Klebsiella pneumoniae 12 0 0 0 4 (33.3) 1 (41.7) 2 (58.3) 0 0 1 (66.7) 0 0 1 (75.0) 3 (100.0) inhibitory concentration (MIC) summary data and percent susceptibility (%S) – The majority of pathogens were isolated from cellulitis and major cutaneous ESBL-positive 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (33.3) 2 (100.0) for study drugs against baseline pathogens are reported in the table. abscess specimens, and most were Gram-positive monomicrobial infections. ESBL-negative 8 0 0 0 4 (50.0) 1 (62.5) 5 (87.5) 0 0 1 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 Infections were predominantly community-acquired (94.1%). Pathogen CPT (mg/L) VA (mg/L) AZT (mg/L) ESBL-indeterminate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (100.0) – S. aureus was the most frequently isolated pathogen (55.6% ceftaroline MIC MIC MIC MIC MIC MIC K. oxytoca 8 0 0 1 (12.5) 4 (62.5) 2 (87.5) 1 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 fosamil; 58.8% vancomycin plus aztreonam). The incidences of MSSA and ESBL-negative 8 0 0 1 (12.5) 4 (62.5) 2 (87.5) 1 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n /%S range n /%S range /%S range MRSA were 43.1% and 12.5% respectively in the ceftaroline fosamil group, S. aureus 137 0.5/100 0.06–1 80 1/100 ≤0.25–1 NT NT and 43.4% and 16.2% in the vancomycin plus aztreonam group. Other Gram- Proteus mirabilis 11 0 0 4 (36.4) 4 (72.7) 2 (90.9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (100.0) positive aerobes isolated in ≥1% of total patients included: Streptococcus ESBL-negative 10 0 0 4 (40.0) 4 (80.0) 2 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 β-haemolytic 0.015/ ≤0.008– 0.015/ ≤0.008– 36 17 NT NT streptococci 100 0.015 100 0.06 anginosus group (7.3%), S. pyogenes (6.5%), Enterococcus faecalis (4.9%), ESBL-indeterminate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (100.0) S. agalactiae (4.2%), S. dysgalactiae (3.1%), Streptococcus mitis group (1.6%), S. anginosus ≤0.008– ND/ Morganella morganii 7 0 0 2 (28.6) 3 (71.4) 2 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0.03/100 3 0.5 NT NT Actinomyces (1.0%), and Enterococcus faecium (1.0%). group 0.03 100 Enterobacter cloacae 12 0 0 0 2 (16.7) 5 (58.3) 3 (83.3) 1 (91.7) 1 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 E. coli ESBL- ≤0.03– – Enterobacteriaceae (most commonly E. coli) were identified in 21.6% of For isolates where n≥10, light shading indicates MIC ; dark shading indicates MIC ; green shading indicates MIC /MIC 15 2/86.7 0.015–8 11 NT NT 0.12/100 50 90 50 90 negative 0.25 primary infection site or blood specimens. Monomicrobial infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae constituted <7% of all infections. KP ESBL- ND/ ≤0.03– 5 ND/80 0.06–2 3 NT NT negative 100 0.06 PM ESBL- ND/ 8 ND/100 0.03–0.12 2 NT NT ≤0.03 Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medical Review(S) Clinical Review
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 200327 MEDICAL REVIEW(S) CLINICAL REVIEW Application Type NDA Application Number(s) 200327 Priority or Standard Standard Submit Date(s) December 29, 2009 Received Date(s) December 30, 2009 PDUFA Goal Date October 30, 2010 Division / Office Division of Anti-Infective and Ophthalmology Products Office of Antimicrobial Products Reviewer Name(s) Ariel Ramirez Porcalla, MD, MPH Neil Rellosa, MD Review Completion October 29, 2010 Date Established Name Ceftaroline fosamil for injection (Proposed) Trade Name Teflaro Therapeutic Class Cephalosporin; ß-lactams Applicant Cerexa, Inc. Forest Laboratories, Inc. Formulation(s) 400 mg/vial and 600 mg/vial Intravenous Dosing Regimen 600 mg every 12 hours by IV infusion Indication(s) Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection (ABSSSI); Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP) Intended Population(s) Adults ≥ 18 years of age Template Version: March 6, 2009 Reference ID: 2857265 Clinical Review Ariel Ramirez Porcalla, MD, MPH Neil Rellosa, MD NDA 200327: Teflaro (ceftaroline fosamil) Table of Contents 1 RECOMMENDATIONS/RISK BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ......................................... 9 1.1 Recommendation on Regulatory Action ........................................................... 10 1.2 Risk Benefit Assessment.................................................................................. 10 1.3 Recommendations for Postmarketing Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ceftazidime for Injection) PHARMACY BULK PACKAGE – NOT for DIRECT INFUSION
    PRESCRIBING INFORMATION FORTAZ® (ceftazidime for injection) PHARMACY BULK PACKAGE – NOT FOR DIRECT INFUSION To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of FORTAZ and other antibacterial drugs, FORTAZ should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by bacteria. DESCRIPTION Ceftazidime is a semisynthetic, broad-spectrum, beta-lactam antibacterial drug for parenteral administration. It is the pentahydrate of pyridinium, 1-[[7-[[(2-amino-4­ thiazolyl)[(1-carboxy-1-methylethoxy)imino]acetyl]amino]-2-carboxy-8-oxo-5-thia-1­ azabicyclo[4.2.0]oct-2-en-3-yl]methyl]-, hydroxide, inner salt, [6R-[6α,7β(Z)]]. It has the following structure: The molecular formula is C22H32N6O12S2, representing a molecular weight of 636.6. FORTAZ is a sterile, dry-powdered mixture of ceftazidime pentahydrate and sodium carbonate. The sodium carbonate at a concentration of 118 mg/g of ceftazidime activity has been admixed to facilitate dissolution. The total sodium content of the mixture is approximately 54 mg (2.3 mEq)/g of ceftazidime activity. The Pharmacy Bulk Package vial contains 709 mg of sodium carbonate. The sodium content is approximately 54 mg (2.3mEq) per gram of ceftazidime. FORTAZ in sterile crystalline form is supplied in Pharmacy Bulk Packages equivalent to 6g of anhydrous ceftazidime. The Pharmacy Bulk Package bottle is a container of sterile preparation for parenteral use that contains many single doses. The contents are intended for use in a pharmacy admixture program and are restricted to the preparation of admixtures for intravenous use. THE PHARMACY BULK PACKAGE IS NOT FOR DIRECT INFUSION, FURTHER DILUTION IS REQUIRED BEFORE USE.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Children: Review of Current Knowledge and Its Application
    Infect Dis Ther (2017) 6:57–67 DOI 10.1007/s40121-016-0144-8 REVIEW Use of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Children: Review of Current Knowledge and its Application Juwon Yim . Leah M. Molloy . Jason G. Newland Received: November 10, 2016 / Published online: December 30, 2016 Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com ABSTRACT infections, CABP caused by penicillin- and ceftriaxone-resistant S. pneumoniae and Ceftaroline is a novel cephalosporin recently resistant Gram-positive infections that fail approved in children for treatment of acute first-line antimicrobial agents. However, bacterial skin and soft tissue infections and limited data are available on tolerability in community-acquired bacterial pneumonia neonates and infants younger than 2 months (CABP) caused by methicillin-resistant of age, and on pharmacokinetic characteristics Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae in children with chronic medical conditions and other susceptible bacteria. With a favorable and those with invasive, complicated tolerability profile and efficacy proven in infections. In this review, the microbiological pediatric patients and excellent in vitro profile of ceftaroline, its mechanism of action, activity against resistant Gram-positive and and pharmacokinetic profile will be presented. Gram-negative bacteria, ceftaroline may serve Additionally, clinical evidence for use in as a therapeutic option for polymicrobial pediatric patients and proposed place in therapy is discussed. Enhanced content To view enhanced content for this article go to http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/ 1F47F0601BB3F2DD. Keywords: Antibiotic resistance; Ceftaroline J. Yim (&) fosamil; Children; Methicillin-resistant St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, MI, Staphylococcus aureus; Streptococcus pneumoniae USA e-mail: [email protected] L.
    [Show full text]
  • Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Antibiotic Guide
    Stanford Health Issue Date: 05/2017 Stanford Antimicrobial Safety and Sustainability Program Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Antibiotic Guide Table 1: Antibiotic selection options for healthcare associated and/or immunocompromised patients • Healthcare associated: intravenous therapy, wound care, or intravenous chemotherapy within the prior 30 days, residence in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, hospitalization in an acute care hospital for two or more days within the prior 90 days, attendance at a hospital or hemodialysis clinic within the prior 30 days • Immunocompromised: Receiving chemotherapy, known systemic cancer not in remission, ANC <500, severe cell-mediated immune deficiency Table 2: Antibiotic selection options for community acquired, immunocompetent patients Table 3: Antibiotic selection options for patients with simple sepsis, community acquired, immunocompetent patients requiring hospitalization. Risk Factors for Select Organisms P. aeruginosa MRSA Invasive Candidiasis VRE (and other resistant GNR) Community acquired: • Known colonization with MDROs • Central venous catheter • Liver transplant • Prior IV antibiotics within 90 day • Recent MRSA infection • Broad-spectrum antibiotics • Known colonization • Known colonization with MDROs • Known MRSA colonization • + 1 of the following risk factors: • Prolonged broad antibacterial • Skin & Skin Structure and/or IV access site: ♦ Parenteral nutrition therapy Hospital acquired: ♦ Purulence ♦ Dialysis • Prolonged profound • Prior IV antibiotics within 90 days ♦ Abscess
    [Show full text]
  • Antimicrobial Surgical Prophylaxis
    Antimicrobial Surgical Prophylaxis The antimicrobial surgical prophylaxis protocol establishes evidence-based standards for surgical prophylaxis at The Nebraska Medical Center. The protocol was adapted from the recently published consensus guidelines from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) and customized to Nebraska Medicine with the input of the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in concert with the various surgical groups at the institution. The protocol established here-in will be implemented via standard order sets utilized within One Chart. Routine surgical prophylaxis and current and future surgical order sets are expected to conform to this guidance. Antimicrobial Surgical Prophylaxis Initiation Optimal timing: Within 60 minutes before surgical incision o Exceptions: Fluoroquinolones and vancomycin (within 120 minutes before surgical incision) Successful prophylaxis necessitates that the antimicrobial agent achieve serum and tissue concentrations above the MIC for probable organisms associated with the specific procedure type at the time of incision as well as for the duration of the procedure. Renal Dose Adjustment Guidance The following table can be utilized to determine if adjustments are needed to antimicrobial surgical prophylaxis for both pre-op and post-op dosing. Table 1 Renal Dosage Adjustment Dosing Regimen with Dosing Regimen with CrCl Dosing Regimen with
    [Show full text]
  • Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidance
    Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidance Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Practice Guidelines March 2013 Clinical guidelines are made available to the public for informational purposes only. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not warrant these guidelines for any other purpose, and assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage resulting from the reliance thereof. Proper medical practice necessitates that all cases are evaluated on an individual basis and that treatment decisions are patient-specific. Consult the BOP Clinical Practice Guidelines Web page to determine the date of the most recent update to this document: http://www.bop.gov/news/medresources.jsp Federal Bureau of Prisons Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidance Clinical Practice Guidelines March 2013 Table of Contents 1. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Antimicrobial Stewardship in the BOP............................................................................................ 4 4. General Guidance for Diagnosis and Identifying Infection ............................................................. 5 Diagnosis of Specific Infections ........................................................................................................ 6 Upper Respiratory Infections (not otherwise specified) ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Synermox 500 Mg/125 Mg Tablets
    New Zealand Data Sheet 1. PRODUCT NAME Synermox 500 mg/125 mg Tablets 2. QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE COMPOSITION Synermox 500 mg/125 mg Tablets: Each film‐coated tablet contains amoxicillin trihydrate equivalent to 500 mg amoxicillin, with potassium clavulanate equivalent to 125 mg clavulanic acid. Excipient(s) with known effect For the full list of excipients, see section 6.1. 3. PHARMACEUTICAL FORM Synermox 500 mg/125 mg Tablets: White to off‐white, oval shaped film‐coated tablets, debossed with “RX713” on one side and plain on the other. 4. CLINICAL PARTICULARS 4.1. Therapeutic indications Synermox is indicated in adults and children (see sections 4.2, 4.4 and 5.1) for short term treatment of common bacterial infections such as: Upper Respiratory Tract Infections (including ENT) e.g. Tonsillitis, sinusitis, otitis media. Lower Respiratory Tract Infection e.g. acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, lobar and broncho‐pneumonia. Genito‐urinary Tract Infections e.g. Cystitis, urethritis, pyelonephritis, female genital infections. Skin and Soft Tissue Infections. Bone and Joint Infections e.g. Osteomyelitis. Other Infections e.g. septic abortion, puerperal sepsis, intra‐abdominal sepsis, septicaemia, peritonitis, post‐surgical infections. Synermox is indicated for prophylaxis against infection which may be associated with major surgical procedures such as those involving: Gastro‐intestinal tract Pelvic cavity 1 | Page Head and neck Cardiac Renal Joint replacement Biliary tract surgery Infections caused by amoxicillin susceptible organisms are amenable to Synermox treatment due to its amoxicillin content. Mixed infections caused by amoxicillin susceptible organisms in conjunction with Synermox‐susceptible beta‐lactamase‐producing organisms may therefore be treated by Synermox.
    [Show full text]
  • Penicillin Allergy Guidance Document
    Penicillin Allergy Guidance Document Key Points Background Careful evaluation of antibiotic allergy and prior tolerance history is essential to providing optimal treatment The true incidence of penicillin hypersensitivity amongst patients in the United States is less than 1% Alterations in antibiotic prescribing due to reported penicillin allergy has been shown to result in higher costs, increased risk of antibiotic resistance, and worse patient outcomes Cross-reactivity between truly penicillin allergic patients and later generation cephalosporins and/or carbapenems is rare Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy Obtain a detailed history of allergic reaction Classify the type and severity of the reaction paying particular attention to any IgE-mediated reactions (e.g., anaphylaxis, hives, angioedema, etc.) (Table 1) Evaluate prior tolerance of beta-lactam antibiotics utilizing patient interview or the electronic medical record Recommendations for Challenging Penicillin Allergic Patients See Figure 1 Follow-Up Document tolerance or intolerance in the patient’s allergy history Consider referring to allergy clinic for skin testing Created July 2017 by Macey Wolfe, PharmD; John Schoen, PharmD, BCPS; Scott Bergman, PharmD, BCPS; Sara May, MD; and Trevor Van Schooneveld, MD, FACP Disclaimer: This resource is intended for non-commercial educational and quality improvement purposes. Outside entities may utilize for these purposes, but must acknowledge the source. The guidance is intended to assist practitioners in managing a clinical situation but is not mandatory. The interprofessional group of authors have made considerable efforts to ensure the information upon which they are based is accurate and up to date. Any treatments have some inherent risk. Recommendations are meant to improve quality of patient care yet should not replace clinical judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • IV Vancomycin Dosing and Monitoring Antibiotic Guidelines Reference Number: 144TD(C)25(H3) Version Number: 6.1 Issue Date: 21/07/2020 Page 1 of 12
    Group arrangements: Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (SRFT) Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (PAT) IV Vancomycin dosing and monitoring Antibiotic Guidelines Lead Author: Antibiotic Steering Group Additional author(s) Elizabeth Trautt, Consultant Microbiologist; Sue Wei Chong, Antimicrobial Pharmacist Division/ Department:: NCA Diagnostics and Pharmacy Group Applies to: Salford Royal Care Organisation Approving Committee Medicines Management Group Date approved: 02/07/2020 Expiry date: July 2023 Contents Contents 1. Overview (What is this guideline about?) ....................................................................... 2 2. Scope (Where will this document be used?) .................................................................. 2 3. Background (Why is this document important?) ............................................................. 2 4. What is new in this version? ............................................................................................ 3 5. Guideline ......................................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Method of administration ................................................................................................. 3 5.2. Dose calculation .............................................................................................................. 3 5.3. Patients with Renal failure/Kidney disease (CrCl<30ml/min or dialysis) .......................... 4 5.4 Therapeutic drug level monitoring ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eml-2017-Antibacterials-Eng.Pdf
    Consideration of antibacterial medicines as part of the revisions to 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for adults (EML) and Model List of Essential Medicines for children (EMLc) Section 6.2 Antibacterials including Access, Watch and Reserve Lists of antibiotics This summary has been prepared by the Health Technologies and Pharmaceuticals (HTP) programme at the WHO Regional Office for Europe. It is intended to communicate changes to the 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for adults (EML) and Model List of Essential Medicines for children (EMLc) to national counterparts involved in the evidence-based selection of medicines for inclusion in national essential medicines lists (NEMLs), lists of medicines for inclusion in reimbursement programs, and medicine formularies for use in primary, secondary and tertiary care. This document does not replace the full report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2017 and this summary should be read in conjunction with the full report (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1006; http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/259481/1/9789241210157-eng.pdf?ua=1). The revised lists of essential medicines (in English) are available as follows: 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for adults (EML) http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/20th_EML2017_FINAL_amend edAug2017.pdf?ua=1 2017 Model List of Essential Medicines for children (EMLc) http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/6th_EMLc2017_FINAL_amend edAug2017.pdf?ua=1 Summary of changes to Section 6.2 Antibacterials: Section 6 of the EML covers anti-infective medicines. Disease-specific subsections within Section 6, such as those covering medicines for tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis and malaria, have been regularly reviewed and updated, taking into consideration relevant WHO treatment guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Amoxicillin Clavulanate Be Used for Treating MRSA?
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Can amoxicillin clavulanate be used for treating MRSA? Sana Jamil1, Uzma Saad2, Saleem Hafiz1 Jamil S, Saad U, Hafiz S. Can amoxicillin clavulanate be used for treating positive for Beta lactamase production 52.1% of these Beta lactamase MRSA? J Pharmacol Res December-2017;1(1):21-23. producing MRSA were sensitive to amoxicillin-clavulanate and the remaining (47.9%) were resistant. Objective: To determine the frequency of beta lactamase producing Conclusion: If beta lactamase producing Staphlococcus aureus are tested Staphlococcus aureus and their sensitivity to Amoxicillin clavulanate in against beta-lactam antimicrobial agents in combination with clavulanic major cities of Pakistan. acid or sulbactam (Beta-lactamase inhibitors), they become susceptible to Setting: Various laboratories of the country with one as the central the Beta-lactam antimicrobial agents. This might have therapeutic and Laboratory. epidemiological implications in near future. Materials and Methods: Seven hundred and ninety two consecutive Key Words: Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Vancomycin clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus were collected from 8 intermediate Staphylococcus aureus; Vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus laboratories all over Pakistan i.e. Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore, Sukkhur, aureus; Clinical laboratory standard institute; Penicillinase resistant Islamabad, Quetta, and Mirpur, Azad Kashmir. Antibiotic sensitivity was penicillins; Minimum inhibitory concentration; Penicillin binding proteins; done by Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method and Beta lactamase production Center of disease control was identified by using Nitrocefin test. Results: Forty two percent of the isolates were found to be Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) out of which 87.9% were INTRODUCTION lactamase producing MRSA in Pakistan and its sensitivity to Amoxicillin clavulanate.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Heather F
    Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine DigitalCommons@PCOM PCOM Scholarly Papers 2014 Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Heather F. DeBellis Kimberly L. Barefield Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/scholarly_papers Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation DeBellis, Heather F. and Barefield, Kimberly L., "Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community- Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia" (2014). PCOM Scholarly Papers. 1913. https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/scholarly_papers/1913 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@PCOM. It has been accepted for inclusion in PCOM Scholarly Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@PCOM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open Access: Full open access to Clinical Medicine Reviews this and thousands of other papers at http://www.la-press.com. in Therapeutics Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in the Management of Community- Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Heather F. DeBellis and Kimberly L. Tackett South University School of Pharmacy, Savannah, GA, USA. ABSTR ACT: Ceftaroline fosamil is a new fifth-generation cephalosporin indicated for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). It possesses antimicrobial effects against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but not against anaerobes. Organisms covered by this novel agent that are commonly associated with CABP are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae; however, ceftaroline fosamil lacks antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter species.
    [Show full text]