The DOI matches its Crossref record.
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
Abstract
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.
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
Cited by
Tong, S. Y. C., Davis, J. S., Eichenberger, E., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00134-14 · Cited by 5,192
Torres, A., Zhong, N., Pachl, J., Timsit, J.-F., Kollef, M., Chen, Z., Song, J., Taylor, D., Laud, P. J., Stone, G. G., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30747-8 · Cited by 441
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
Metadata
- Authors
- File, Jr., Low, D. E., Eckburg, P. B., Talbot, G. H., David Friedland, H., Lee, J., Llorens, L., Critchley, I., & Thye, D.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-12-15
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1395-1405
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2132212568
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 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. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/657313
- The paper
- File, Jr., Low, D. E., Eckburg, P. B., Talbot, G. H., David Friedland, H., Lee, J., Llorens, L., Critchley, I., & Thye, D. (2010). 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. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/657313
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.