CAPTURE is a multicenter, retrospective registry of patients receiving ceftaroline dosed per package insert recommendations (i.e., 600 mg intravenously twice a day or dose adjusted for renal dysfunction) for the treatment of CABP and CAP. The data generated from CAPTURE provide critical insights into the real-world effectiveness of ceftaroline for both CABP and CAP [
5‐
10]. It provides clinical outcome data on patient populations and bacterial pathogens not well represented or excluded in the Phase III clinical trials (i.e., MRSA). The CAPTURE program also provides the opportunity to collect data on outcomes not traditionally examined in Phase III trials, like hospital length of stay and healthcare costs.
CAPTURE: Year One and Two
The first 2 years of CAPTURE examined clinical effectiveness and safety among patients treated with ceftaroline for CAP. In the first year of the CAPTURE registry (August 2011 to August 2012), data were available on 272 patients with CAP from 30 study centers [
10,
24]. At the time of the year one analysis, the cohort well reflected a patient population commensurate with inpatients being treated for CAP. Most patients were older (mean [SD] age: 63.6 [17.9]), males (54%) with at least one comorbidity (76%). The most prevalent comorbidities included structural lung disease (40%), smoking (28%), recent pneumonia (24%), and congestive heart failure (19%). Overall clinical success, defined as no need for further antibiotics or clinical improvement with switch to oral antibiotics, was 77%. Patients’ mean (SD) length of therapy (LOT) was 6.3 (4.7) days. Most patients were discharged to home (58%) or another healthcare facility (38%). Patients seldom discontinued treatment due to adverse events (
n = 6, 2%). These findings suggest that in a real-world setting, ceftaroline has similar effectiveness as compared to that observed in the Phase III clinical trials.
Several caveats should be noted when interpreting these findings. First, 84% of patients received antibiotics prior to ceftaroline. The most commonly used antibiotics were other cephalosporins (35%), glycopeptides (34%), quinolones (32%), macrolides (25%), and penicillins (21%). However, the authors note that clinical success was similar in patients receiving prior antibiotics as compared to those without prior antibiotics (77% and 75%, respectively). In addition, it is important to recognize that less than one-half of patients received ceftaroline as monotherapy (37%). Patients that received combinations of ceftaroline often received quinolones (21%), macrolides (20%), and glycopeptides (13%). Concurrent utilization of additional antibiotics may lead to overestimation of the treatment effect of ceftaroline. Lastly, the failure to note differences within subgroups may be due to limited power.
As the CAPTURE registry was expanded, the outcomes of patients with CAP were re-examined [
5]. Between August 2011 and February 2013, 528 patients with CAP were enrolled and eligible for evaluation. The mean age was 63.8 years, over half the population was female, and 60.8% were white. The majority (76.5%) had relevant medical history including structural lung disease (43.2%), prior pneumonia (25.4%), GERD (24.1%), and CHF (21.4%). Similar to the first CAPTURE analysis of patients with CAP, 31.4% patients were past or present smokers. The majority of patients used ceftaroline as non-first line therapy (
n = 445, 84.3%). Monotherapy was still infrequent (
n = 28, 33.7%) among patients that received ceftraroline as first-line therapy. Among those who received ceftaroline first line, the mean (median) LOT was 5.8 (5.0) days and the mean (median) LOS was 11.8 (7.0) days. In contrast, mean (median) LOT was 6.2 (5.0) and the mean (median) LOS was 13.4 (9.0) days (
p-value not reported) in those receiving ceftaroline not as first-line therapy. The mean (median) total hospital charges were $93,183 ($44,741) and $106,076 ($53,825) for first-line and non-first line cohorts, respectively. Irrespective of receiving first- or non-first line therapy with ceftaroline, the majority of patients were discharged to home (64.8%) or to another care facility (16.2%).
These data suggest that there may be a cost benefit from utilizing ceftaroline as first-line therapy. Overall, those who received ceftaroline as first-line therapy tended to have shorter lengths of stays and lower total hospital charges. However, there are several important considerations with these data. The findings were descriptive in nature and multivariate statistics were not performed. Therefore, it is unclear if unequal distribution of baseline characteristics or unmeasured confounders may have affected the study results. In the patients receiving ceftaroline as non-first line therapy it is possible that these patients were switched from inactive or insufficient therapy. These delays in time to appropriate therapy may account for some of the observed differences between study groups. Hence, prior to adopting ceftaroline as a first-line therapy for the purpose of cost savings, additional research is needed.
Special Populations Within CAPTURE
In addition to validating findings from the FOCUS trials, CAPTURE also examined outcomes in previously unexamined special populations. In FOCUS, critically ill patients in intensive care units were excluded [
24]. However, critically ill patients were eligible for enrollment in CAPTURE. In the first CAPTURE evaluation of patients with CAP, 99 (36%) patients were admitted to the ICU and their cure rate was 67%. These data suggest that there may be a role for ceftaroline in treatment of CAP among patients admitted to the ICU.
The CAPTURE registry also provided a unique opportunity to examine ceftaroline use with and without vancomycin for patients with CAP [
24]. For this analysis, data were available on 175 patients with CAP. Among these patients, 77% (
n = 134) received ceftaroline monotherapy and 23% (
n = 41) received ceftaroline plus vancomycin. Baseline demographics were similar to previous CAPTURE evaluations. Patients receiving ceftaroline monotherapy and combination therapy had a similar average (median) LOT (6.4 [6] vs 6.8 (6) days, respectively,
p-value not reported). The mean total hospital length of stay was longer in the combination group (20.9 vs. 14.6 days,
p-value not reported). Numerically similar proportions of patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy were discharged to home (55% vs. 41%,
p-value not reported) or another care facility (40% vs. 44%,
p-value not reported). Four patients expired in the study period, all of which were in the combination group. Although these data may suggest that the addition of vancomycin to ceftaroline for CAP does not improve outcomes, it is important to note that more patients in the combination therapy group were admitted to the ICU. Conversely, ceftaroline monotherapy was more common in the general practice units (66%). This potential selection bias may have skewed the results in favor of ceftaroline monotherapy but more data are needed in each patient care setting (ICU vs. non-ICU) before definitive conclusions can be made.
Within the FOCUS trials, patients with severe renal dysfunction (CrCL <30 mL/min) were excluded [
3,
4]. The CAPTURE registry has provided an opportunity to study a small cohort (26 patients) with renal insufficiency (baseline serum creatinine >1.8 mg/dL) [
7]. The majority of patients were male (
n = 15, 58%), the mean (SD) age was 67.9 years, and average BMI was 28.2 kg/m
2 [
2]. The most prevalent comorbidities among patients with renal impairment and CAP were GERD (
n = 8, 31%), history of smoking (
n = 7, 27%), and CHF (
n = 6, 23%). Most patients (
n = 19, 73%) were treated in general practice units. Prior antibiotics were again common; the most frequent antibiotics received prior to ceftaroline were glycopeptides (31%), macrolides (31%), and quinolones (27%). Concurrent antibiotics were also commonplace (65%). The outcomes among patients with renal insufficiency were generally consistent with the overall cohort. The overall clinical cure rate was 81% and the mean (standard deviation) LOT was 5.8 (3.1) days. Most patients were sent home (62%) after hospital discharge. These findings add substantially to the literature regarding the effectiveness of ceftaroline in patients with renal dysfunction. However, consistent with the other subgroup analyses, the limited sample size and the potential for selection bias necessitate the need for additional verification prior to routine use in clinical practice.
Another area of interest for clinicians is the ability of ceftaroline to treat MRSA CABP. Patients with MRSA CABP were specifically excluded from the FOCUS trials due to the inactivity of ceftriaxone against MRSA [
2‐
4]. CAPTURE has afforded an opportunity to examine the use of ceftaroline for patients with CABP with positive cultures for MRSA [
6]. At the time of abstract presentation in 2013, there were a total of 39 patients with CABP with positive cultures for MRSA in CAPTURE. With regard to culture sites, MRSA was isolated from both blood and respiratory samples in three patients (8%), respiratory samples only in 28 patients (72%), and blood samples only in 8 patients (21%). The cohort of patients with CABP with a positive MRSA culture was predominately male (
n = 25, 64%) and the mean (SD) age was 59.0 (16.6) years. Similar to the other subgroups examined, comorbidities were highly prevalent. Thirty-three patients (85%) had comorbidities including structural lung disease (56.4%), GERD (33.3%), history of smoking (25.6%), prior pneumonia (20.5%), and CHF (18.0%). There was an equal proportion of patients admitted to intensive care units and general practice units (51% vs. 49%). Nearly all patients (
n = 36, 92%) received prior antibiotics before initiation of ceftaroline. Glycopeptides, cephalosporins, and penicillins were the most commonly used prior antibiotics (67%, 31%, and 31%, respectively). Half the patients (
n = 20) received ceftaroline as monotherapy, while the remainder received concurrent gylcopeptides (28%), quinolones (15%), and macrolides (8%). Patients were treated for a mean (range) of 7.3 days (range 1–30 days). The incidence of clinical success was 62% (
n = 24). Similar to other investigations, clinical success was greater in those admitted to the general practice units relative to the ICU (74% vs. 50%, respectively). Source of pathogen isolation did not affect clinical cure (respiratory: 61%, blood: 64%). Ceftaroline monotherapy was associated with higher rates of clinical success as compared to combination therapy (75% vs 47%). Among those with a clinical failure, two patients were transferred to hospice care and one patient had a lobectomy due to a lung abscess. A high proportion of patients were discharged home (46%), while fewer were discharged to another care facility (44%).