DukeSpace

Integrated Analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Studies to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infection

DukeSpace

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Corey, Gordon Ralph
dc.date.accessioned 2012-11-01T20:21:11Z
dc.date.available 2012-11-01T20:21:11Z
dc.date.issued 2010-09-15
dc.identifier.citation Corey, G. R., M. Wilcox, et al. (2010). "Integrated Analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Studies to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infection." Clinical Infectious Diseases 51(6): 641-650. en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/5978
dc.description.abstract Background. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI). Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies. Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials, the pooled analysis of which is presented here. The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy, compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy, in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat (MITT) patient populations. Methods. Adult patients with cSSSI requiring intravenous therapy received ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g each every 12 h) for 5–14 days. Results. Of 1378 patients enrolled in both trials, 693 received ceftaroline and 685 received vancomycin plus aztreonam. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were similar for ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam in the CE (91.6% vs 92.7%) and MITT (85.9% vs 85.5%) populations, respectively, as well as in patients infected with MRSA (93.4% vs 94.3%). The rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of an adverse event, serious adverse events, and death also were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions. Ceftaroline achieved high clinical cure rates, was efficacious against cSSSI caused by MRSA and other common cSSSI pathogens, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. Ceftaroline has the potential to provide a monotherapy alternative for the treatment of cSSSI. en_US
dc.publisher University of Chicago Press en_US
dc.relation.isversionof doi:10.1086/655827 en_US
dc.title Integrated Analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Studies to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infection en_US
dc.type Article en_US
duke.description.endpage 650 en_US
duke.description.issue 6 en_US
duke.description.startpage 641 en_US
duke.description.volume 51 en_US
dc.relation.journal Clinical Infectious Diseases en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record