Thomas M. File

Distribution of Legionella Species and Serogroups Isolated by Culture in Patients with Sporadic Community-Acquired Legionellosis: An International Collaborative Survey

This international collaborative survey identified culture-confirmed legionellosis in 508 patients with sporadic community-acquired legionellosis. Legionella pneumophila constituted 91.5% of the isolates. Serogroup 1 was the predominant serogroup (84.2%), and serogroups 2-13 (7.4%) accounted for the remaining serogroups. The Legionella species most commonly isolated were L. longbeachae (3.9%) and L. bozemanii (2.4%), followed by L. micdadei, L. dumoffii, L. feeleii, L. wadsworthii, and L. anisa (2.2% combined). L. longbeachae constituted 30.4% of the community-acquired Legionella isolates in Australia and New Zealand.

Integrated Analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: Randomized, Doubled-Blinded, Multicenter Phase 3 Trials of the Efficacy and Safety of Ceftaroline Fosamil versus Ceftriaxone in Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia

BACKGROUND Ceftaroline, the active form of ceftaroline fosamil, is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against pathogens causing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae. Ceftaroline was evaluated for the treatment of CAP in 2 randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials: Ceftaroline Community Acquired Pneumonia Trial versus Ceftriaxone in Hospitalized Patients (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2. METHODS Patients hospitalized (but not admitted to an intensive care unit) with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class III or IV CAP requiring intravenous therapy were randomized to ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 h for 5-7 days. Patients in FOCUS 1 received 2 doses of oral clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 h on day 1. RESULTS In the individual trials, clinical cure rates in the clinically evaluable (CE) population for ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone were as follows: FOCUS 1, 86.6% vs 78.2% (difference, 8.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-15.4%); FOCUS 2, 82.1% vs 77.2% (difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 12.5%). In the integrated analysis, 614 patients received ceftaroline and 614 received ceftriaxone. Of the CE patients treated with ceftaroline, 84.3% achieved clinical cure, compared with 77.7% of ceftriaxone-treated patients (difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-11.8%). Clinical cure rates in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population were 82.6% versus 76.6% for ceftaroline and ceftriaxone (difference, 6.0%; 95% CI, 1.4%-10.7%). Ceftaroline and ceftriaxone were well tolerated; rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, deaths, and premature discontinuations caused by an adverse event were similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS Ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone in the individual trials. In this integrated analysis, clinical cure rates for the ceftaroline group were numerically higher than those for the ceftriaxone group. Ceftaroline was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of ceftriaxone.

Epidemiology, microbiology, and treatment considerations for bacterial pneumonia complicating influenza

Post-influenza bacterial pneumonia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality associated with both seasonal and pandemic influenza virus illness. However, despite much interest in influenza and its complications in recent years, good clinical trial data to inform clinicians in their assessment of treatment options are scant. This paucity of evidence needs to be addressed urgently in order to improve guidance on the management of post-influenza bacterial pneumonia. The objectives of the current article are to evaluate the emergence of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic and use this information as background for an in-depth review of the epidemiology of bacterial pneumonia complicating influenza, to review the bacterial pathogens most likely to be associated with post-influenza bacterial pneumonia, and to discuss treatment considerations in these patients. When determining optimal management approaches, both antiviral and antibacterial agents should be considered, and their selection should be based upon a clear understanding of how their mechanisms of action intervene in the pathogenesis of post-influenza acute bacterial pneumonia.

HIV Infection Does Not Influence Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Bacterial Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Results from the CAPO International Cohort Study

In a case-control study, outcomes for 58 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were compared with outcomes for 174 HIV-negative patients with CAP. No differences were found in the time to clinical stability, the length of hospitalization, and mortality. Clinical outcomes for hospitalized patients with CAP may not be influenced by HIV infection.

Strategies for Improving Antimicrobial Use and the Role of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs

Thomas M. File Jr,1,2 Joseph S. Solomkin,3 and Sara E. Cosgrove4 1Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease Section, Northeastern Ohio Universities, Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy, Rootstown, Ohio; 2Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease Service, Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; 3Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio; and 4Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Antibiotic Management Program, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland

Case Studies of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common and potentially serious illness with significant human and economic costs to society. The recent collaborative statement from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) represents the most up-to-date evidence-based guidelines from North America, incorporating important advances in the management of patients with CAP. The cases presented in this review highlight many of the recent recommendations from the IDSA/ATS guidelines.