ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
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.
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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00424190 for CANVAS 1 and NCT00423657
for CANVAS 2.
Type
Journal articleSubject
AdolescentAdult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Aztreonam
Cephalosporins
Double-Blind Method
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Skin Diseases, Bacterial
Treatment Outcome
Vancomycin
Young Adult
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/5978Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1086/655827Publication Info
Corey, G Ralph; Wilcox, Mark; Talbot, George H; Friedland, H David; Baculik, Tanya;
Witherell, Gary W; ... Thye, Dirk (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. Clin Infect Dis, 51(6). pp. 641-650. 10.1086/655827. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/5978.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Gordon Ralph Corey
Gary Hock Distinguished Professor Emeritus in Global Health, in the School of Medicine
My research is based at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, a large academic clinical
research organization designed to conduct clinical trials from small local studies
to worldwide trials. The focus of my research is bacterial infections: complicated
skin and skin structure infections; postoperative wound infections; hospital-acquired
and ventilator-associated pneumonia; bacteremia; and endocarditis. Many of these trials
are conducted in concert with the pharmaceutical industry in order to re

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info