Clinical Medicine Reviews in Therapeutics 2011:3
Review
Published on 10 Feb 2011
DOI: 10.4137/CMRT.S1637
Sign up for email alerts to receive notifications of new articles published in Clinical Medicine Reviews in Therapeutics
Microbial resistance has reached alarming levels, threatening to outpace the ability to counter with more potent antimicrobial agents. In particular, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections and PVL-positive strains have been associated with necrotizing pneumonia. Increasing reports of growing resistance to glycopeptides have been noted, further limiting the efficacy of standard antibiotics, such as vancomycin. Ceftaroline is a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin, which exhibits broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA and extensively-resistant strains, such as vancomycin-intermediate
S. aureus (VISA), heteroresistant VISA (hVISA), and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA). In addition to being an exciting new agent in the anti-MRSA armamentarium, ceftaroline provides efficacy against many respiratory pathogens including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ceftaroline (600 mg intravenously every 12 hours) has been shown effective in phase III studies in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia. To date, this unique antibiotic exhibits a low propensity for inducing resistance and has a good safety profile, although further post-marketing data and clinical experience are needed. In summary, ceftaroline provides an additional option for the management of complex multidrug resistant infections, including MRSA.
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
My experience with Clinical Medicine Insights: Case Reports was excellent. The entire review process was fast and accurate. My previous experience with important top ranking journals was unpleasant mainly because the staff were slow and sometimes presumptuous. On the contrary, the editors of Libertas were helpful and prompt in responding to questions and issues related to the submission. I recommend the publisher to my colleagues.
Facebook Google+ Twitter
Pinterest Tumblr YouTube