The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrated Analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Studies to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Complicated Skin and Skin‐Structure Infection
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI). Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies. Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials, the pooled analysis of which is presented here. The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy, compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy, in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat (MITT) patient populations. METHODS: Adult patients with cSSSI requiring intravenous therapy received ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g each every 12 h) for 5-14 days. RESULTS: Of 1378 patients enrolled in both trials, 693 received ceftaroline and 685 received vancomycin plus aztreonam. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were similar for ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam in the CE (91.6% vs 92.7%) and MITT (85.9% vs 85.5%) populations, respectively, as well as in patients infected with MRSA (93.4% vs 94.3%). The rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of an adverse event, serious adverse events, and death also were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline achieved high clinical cure rates, was efficacious against cSSSI caused by MRSA and other common cSSSI pathogens, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. Ceftaroline has the potential to provide a monotherapy alternative for the treatment of cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00424190 for CANVAS 1 and NCT00423657 for CANVAS 2.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Frazee, B. W., Lynn, J., Charlebois, E. D., Lambert, L., Lowery, D., & Perdreau-Remington, F. (2005) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.10.011 · Cited by 494
Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002-2006
Sievert, D. M., Rudrik, J. T., Patel, J. B., McDonald, L. C., Wilkins, M. J., & Hageman, J. C. (2008) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/527392 · Cited by 483
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Community-acquired Skin Infections
Moran, G. J., Amii, R. N., Abrahamian, F. M., & Talan, D. A. (2005) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid1106.040641 · Cited by 278 · cited 1×
“Ceftaroline Efficacy in cSSSI • CID 2010:51 (15 September) • 649 vancomycin plus aztreonam group were methicillin resistant, which is representative of the rate seen across countries with varying MRSA epidemiology [9, 10, 28–32].”
BackgroundYoung, D. M. (2004) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.9.947 · Cited by 162
Cited by
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an overview of basic and clinical research
Turner, N. A., Sharma-Kuinkel, B. K., Maskarinec, S. A., Eichenberger, E. M., Shah, P. P., Carugati, M., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2019) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-018-0147-4 · Cited by 2,051
van Hal, S. J., Lodise, T. P., & Paterson, D. L. (2012) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir935 · Cited by 512
New antibiotics for bad bugs: where are we?
Bassetti, M., Merelli, M., Temperoni, C., & Astilean, A. (2013) · Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials · doi:10.1186/1476-0711-12-22 · Cited by 403
Wagenlehner, F. M., Umeh, O., Steenbergen, J., Yuan, G., & Darouiche, R. O. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62220-0 · Cited by 388
Gould, I. M., David, M. Z., Esposito, S., Garau, J., Lina, G., Mazzei, T., & Peters, G. (2012) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.09.028 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Corey, G. R., Wilcox, M., Talbot, G. H., Friedland, H. D., Baculik, T., Witherell, G. W., Critchley, I., Das, A. F., & Thye, D.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-09-15
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 641-650
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2155965882
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Integrated Analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Studies to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Complicated Skin and Skin‐Structure Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/655827
- The paper
- Corey, G. R., Wilcox, M., Talbot, G. H., Friedland, H. D., Baculik, T., Witherell, G. W., Critchley, I., Das, A. F., & Thye, D. (2010). Integrated Analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Studies to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam in Complicated Skin and Skin‐Structure Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/655827
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.