Why the study?
Does a supratherapeutic dose of intravenous ceftaroline fosamil prolong the corrected QT interval in healthy adults?
Does a supratherapeutic dose of intravenous ceftaroline fosamil prolong the corrected QT interval in healthy adults?
A supratherapeutic dose of intravenous ceftaroline fosamil does not cause clinically meaningful prolongation of the QTc interval in healthy adults.
Supports ceftaroline fosamil use without QTc monitoring; confirms cardiac safety at supratherapeutic doses in this RCT.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-period crossover study was conducted in 54 healthy adults to assess the effect of ceftaroline fosamil on the corrected QT (QTc) interval. The QT interval, corrected for heart rate using an individual correction formula (QTcIb), was determined predose and at 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24.5 h after intravenous dosing with a supratherapeutic dose (1,500 mg) of ceftaroline fosamil, 400 mg moxifloxacin (positive control), and placebo. The pharmacokinetic profile of ceftaroline was also evaluated. At each time point following ceftaroline fosamil administration, the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the placebo-corrected change from predose baseline in QTcIb (ΔΔQTcIb) was below 10 ms (maximum, 3.4 ms at 1.5 h after dosing), indicating an absence of clinically meaningful QTc increase. The lower limit of the 90% CI of ΔΔQTcIb for moxifloxacin versus placebo was greater than 5 ms at 5 time points (maximum, 12.8 ms at 1 h after dosing), demonstrating assay sensitivity. There was no apparent correlation between ceftaroline plasma concentrations and ΔΔQTcIb. The supratherapeutic dose of ceftaroline fosamil (1,500 mg) resulted in substantially greater systemic exposure to ceftaroline than previously observed with standard therapeutic doses. Ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated after a single 1,500-mg intravenous dose, and no clinically meaningful abnormalities in laboratory values or vital signs were observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riccobene et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: