English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftaroline for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) in adult patients through meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ceftaroline and other comparators for treating cSSSIs in adult patients were included. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate, whereas the secondary outcomes were clinical failure rate, microbiological eradication rate, relapse rate, and risk of an adverse event (AE). Five RCTs were included. Overall, ceftaroline had a clinical cure rate similar to comparators in the treatment of cSSSIs in the modified intent-to-treat population (risk ratio (RR), 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97-1.04; I  2 = 0%) and in the clinically evaluable population (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03; I  2 = 0%). In addition, no significant difference was observed between ceftaroline and comparators for the treatment of infection with S  taphylococcus  aureus (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.05; I  2 = 0%), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05; I  2 = 0%), methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; I  2 = 26%), Streptococcus spp. (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92-1.24; I  2 = 73%), and Gram-negative bacteria (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08; I  2 = 0%). Furthermore, ceftaroline had a similar rate of microbiological eradication (92.2% vs. 92.6%, RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03; I  2 = 9%) and relapse (6.9% vs. 9.1%, RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.14-1.74; I  2 = 0%) as comparators. Finally, the risks of treatment-emergent AEs (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05; I  2 = 0%), serious AEs (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.63-1.68; I  2 = 0%), and discontinuation of study drug due to an AE (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.50-1.49; I  2 = 34%) did not differ significantly between ceftaroline and comparators. In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of ceftaroline is as high as that of comparators in the treatment of cSSSIs in adult patients, and this antibiotic is well tolerated like the comparators.

journal of clinical medicine

Ceftaroline Efficacy and Safety in Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infection: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials