Tools
Tools
Horner, Carolyne, Mushtaq, Shazad and Livermore, David 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9856-3703
and
BSAC Resistance Surveillance Standing Committee
(2020)
Activity of ceftaroline versus ceftobiprole against staphylococci and pneumococci in the UK and Ireland: analysis of BSAC surveillance data.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 75 (11).
3239–3243.
ISSN 0305-7453
Preview |
PDF (Accepted_Manuscript)
- Accepted Version
Download (241kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole inhibit most MRSA and MDR pneumococci. Few direct comparisons of their activity have been published, but in several years (2008, 2013, 2017 and 2018) both were tested in parallel in the BSAC Resistance Surveillance Programme, giving paired results. These are reviewed. Methods: Isolates included were bloodstream Staphylococcus aureus [n=1884 (MRSA, n=234)], bloodstream CoNS, (n=813, 574 methicillin resistant) and bloodstream (n=852) and respiratory (n=670) Streptococcus pneumoniae. MICs were determined by BSAC agar dilution and reviewed against EUCAST breakpoints; S. aureus breakpoints were assumed for CoNS. Results: Ceftaroline MICs were mostly 2-fold lower than those of ceftobiprole, but, for all groups, MICs of both agents were strongly inter-related. Methicillin-susceptible staphylococci were universally susceptible to both agents; all MRSA were susceptible to ceftobiprole, whereas 10/234 had intermediate/high dose susceptibility to ceftaroline. Among methicillin-resistant CoNS, 88% were susceptible to both agents, but reduced ceftaroline susceptibility and ceftobiprole resistance were frequent (65%) among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus. One S. pneumoniae was resistant to both ceftaroline (MIC 0.5 mg/L) and ceftobiprole (MIC 1 mg/L) and seven others were only resistant to ceftobiprole (MIC 1 mg/L); seven of these eight pneumococci belonged to serotype 19A or 19F. No time trend in susceptibility was seen for either cephalosporin. Conclusions: Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole have similarly good activity against staphylococci and pneumococci. Therapeutic choices between these agents should be predicated on other differentiating factors, including licensed indications, clinical experience and need for Gram-negative coverage.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | microbiology (medical),infectious diseases,pharmacology (medical),pharmacology,sdg 3 - good health and well-being ,/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2700/2726 |
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School |
| UEA Research Groups: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Public Health and Health Services Research (former - to 2023) Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Epidemiology and Public Health |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | LivePure Connector |
| Date Deposited: | 30 Jun 2020 00:20 |
| Last Modified: | 03 Nov 2022 16:31 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/75822 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/jac/dkaa306 |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |