↓ Skip to main content

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: from FOCUS to CAPTURE

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases and Therapy, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: from FOCUS to CAPTURE
Published in
Infectious Diseases and Therapy, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40121-014-0036-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph J. Carreno, Thomas P. Lodise

Abstract

Ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline hereafter) is the latest addition to the armamentarium for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). It is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which is a recent FDA indication that centers on individuals with documented bacterial pneumonias that arise in the community setting. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the major findings from the Phase III CAP clinical trials as well as the clinical experience with ceftaroline among patients with CAP in the "Ceftaroline Assessment Program and Teflaro(®) Utilization Registry" (CAPTURE). In its two Phase III CAP trials, ceftaroline was compared to ceftriaxone among adults with radiographically confirmed CAP requiring hospitalization who were classified as Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class III or IV. Among patients with CAP, clinical success at test of cure was 84.3% vs 77.7% (difference 6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-11.8%) in those treated with ceftaroline and ceftriaxone, respectively, across the two Phase III clinical trials. Among patients with a culture-confirmed CABP, day 4 response rates were numerically higher, albeit non-significant, among patients that received ceftaroline vs. ceftriaxone (69.5% for ceftaroline vs. 59.4% for ceftriaxone, difference 10.1%, 95% CI, -0.6% to 20.6%). The efficacy of ceftaroline is supported by real-world observational data from CAPTURE for patients with both CAP and CABP. In addition, the CAPTURE program afforded an opportunity to assess the outcomes of patients who were excluded or limited in the original Phase III trials in a non-comparative fashion. These underrepresented patient populations with CAP included: patients that received prior antibiotics, patients in the ICU, patients with severe renal dysfunction, and those with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from respiratory or blood culture. As CAPTURE is a retrospective, non-comparator convenience sample registry, all the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,418,053
of 24,244,537 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Diseases and Therapy
#104
of 761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,339
of 243,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Diseases and Therapy
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,244,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 761 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.