Early improvement in severely ill patients with pneumonia treated with ceftobiprole: a retrospective analysis of two major trials

Table 2 Baseline characteristics for high-risk patients with CAP and HAP (excluding VAP) (CE population)

	High-risk CAP
	Ceftobiprole (n = 193) n (%)	Ceftriaxone ± linezolid (n = 205) n (%)
Male	115 (59.6)	123 (60.0)
Age ≥ 65 years	88 (45.6)	92 (44.9)
Sepsis	123 (63.7)	135 (65.9)
Pre-study antibiotics within 24 h	97 (50.3)	121 (59.0)
Valid pathogen at baseline	59 (30.6)	68 (33.2)
Patients with linezolid use^a	19 (9.8)	30 (14.6)
	High-risk HAP (excluding VAP)
	Ceftobiprole (n = 169) n (%)	Ceftazidime plus linezolid (n = 138) n (%)
Male	117 (69.2)	80 (58.0)
Age ≥ 65 years	106 (62.7)	86 (62.3)
Sepsis	122 (72.2)	109 (79.0)
APACHE score ≥ 15	67 (39.6)	59 (42.8)
Ventilation at baseline	22 (13.0)	24 (17.4)
Pre-study antibiotics within 24 h	101 (59.8)	81 (58.7)
Valid pathogen at baseline	100 (59.2)	89 (64.5)
Anti-pseudomonal antibiotics^b	24 (14.2)	16 (11.6)

^aCAP patients suspected of MRSA infection received add-on linezolid if randomised to ceftriaxone; if randomised to ceftobiprole, they received add-on placebo instead of linezolid
^bEmpirical treatment with antibiotic therapy was added to the study treatment for 48 h in patients with a suspected infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa or for 5–7 days in patients with proven infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa
APACHE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, CAP community-acquired pneumonia, CE clinically evaluable, HAP hospital-acquired pneumonia, MRSA methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, VAP ventilator-associated pneumonia

ISSN: 1471-2334