Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Clinical Data on Daptomycin plus Ceftaroline versus Standard of Care Monotherapy in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

Vancomycin (VAN) and daptomycin (DAP) are approved as a monotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. A regimen of daptomycin plus ceftaroline (DAP+CPT) has shown promise in published case series of MRSA salvage therapy, but no comparative data exist to compare up-front DAP+CPT head-to-head therapy versus standard monotherapy as an initial treatment. In a pilot study, we evaluated 40 adult patients who were randomized to receive 6 to 8 mg/kg of body weight per day of DAP and 600 mg intravenous (i.v.) CPT every 8 h (q8h) ( n = 17) or standard monotherapy ( n = 23) with vancomycin (VAN; dosed to achieve serum trough concentrations of 15 to 20 mg/liter; n = 21) or 6 to 8 mg/kg/day DAP ( n = 2). Serum drawn on the first day of bacteremia was sent to a reference laboratory post hoc for measurement of interleukin-10 (IL-10) concentrations and correlation to in-hospital mortality. Sources of bacteremia, median Pitt bacteremia scores, Charlson comorbidity indices, and median IL-10 serum concentrations were similar in both groups. Although the study was initially designed to examine bacteremia duration, we observed an unanticipated in-hospital mortality difference of 0% (0/17) for combination therapy and 26% (6/23) for monotherapy ( P = 0.029), causing us to halt the study. Among patients with an IL-10 concentration of >5 pg/ml, 0% (0/14) died in the DAP+CPT group versus 26% (5/19) in the monotherapy group ( P = 0.057). Here, we share the full results of this preliminary (but aborted) assessment of early DAP+CPT therapy versus standard monotherapy in MRSA bacteremia, hoping to encourage a more definitive clinical trial of its potential benefits against this leading cause of infection-associated mortality. (The clinical study discussed in this paper has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02660346.).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app