Document Type
Article
Abstract
Background Both ceftaroline and daptomycin are possible therapeutic options for diabetic foot infection (DFI) and both are active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection; however, no previous studies have evaluated their efectiveness head-to-head.
Objective This study compared hospital readmission and mortality proportions among patients receiving ceftaroline fosamil or daptomycin for DFI.
Patients and Methods This was a retrospective cohort, comparative efectiveness study of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to United States Veterans Health Care System hospitals with a diagnosis code for DFI between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2014 with an electronic order for ceftaroline or daptomycin as frst-line therapy within 14 days of admission. Baseline characteristics were compared using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Hospital readmission and patient mortality proportions were compared through multivariable logistic regression models with Hispanic ethnicity, prior hospitalization, dyslipidemia, and Charlson comorbidity score as covariates.
Results In total, 223 patients were included (ceftaroline, n = 71; daptomycin n = 152). At baseline, ceftaroline patients were more likely to be Hispanic (18 vs. 6%, p < 0.01) and have been hospitalized in the past 90 days (34 vs. 19%, p = 0.02). Unadjusted 90-day hospital readmission proportions for ceftaroline versus daptomycin were 34 vs. 49%, and unadjusted 90-day mortality proportions were 1% vs. 8%. In multivariable models, ceftaroline patients were less likely to experience 90-day hospital readmission (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confdence interval [CI] 0.25–0.85) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01–0.77).
Conclusions In this population, ceftaroline was associated with lower 90-day hospital readmission and 90-day mortality compared with daptomycin when used as frst-line therapy for DFI.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Publication Info
Published in Drugs - Real World Outcomes, Volume 9, 2022, pages 609-615.
© The Author(s) 2022
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
APA Citation
Eaves, A. C., Teng, C., Evoy, K. E., & Frei, C. R. (2022). Retrospective cohort evaluating the comparative effectiveness of ceftaroline and daptomycin as first-line therapies for inpatient treatment of diabetic foot infection in the United States veterans health care system. Drugs - Real World Outcomes, 9, 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-022-00319-1
Rights
© The Author(s) 2022
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.