CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01530763Updated Jan 13, 2015

Safety and Efficacy Study of Ceftaroline Versus a Comparator in Pediatric Subjects With Community Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP)

A Phase 2/3 interventional study of Ceftaroline fosamil and Ceftriaxone in Infections and Community Acquired Pneumonia, sponsored by Forest Laboratories. Completed at 44 sites in 9 countries. Open to participants aged 2 Months to 18 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-01-13.

Sponsored by Forest Laboratories · Phase 2/3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2/3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
161
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
2 Months to 18 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a study of safety and effectiveness of ceftaroline fosamil in children with Community Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia receiving antibiotic therapy in the hospital.

Read the detailed description

To evaluate safety, effectiveness, pharmacokinetics and tolerance of ceftaroline fosamil in children who are initially hospitalized with Community Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (CABP)

02

Conditions studied

  • Infections
  • Community Acquired Pneumonia

Keywords

  • Infections
  • Pediatrics
  • Teflaro
  • cephalosporin
03

In context

Pneumonia

2,044 studies on the registry are indexed under Pneumonia; 283 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 161 is above the median of 106 across 1,247 interventional studies indexed under Pneumonia.

Browse Pneumonia studies →

Lead sponsor

Forest Laboratories is the lead sponsor of 165 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 6 (100%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
2 Months to 18 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Male or female, 2 months to \< 18 years old.
  • Presence of CABP requiring hospitalization and IV antibacterial therapy

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Documented history of any hypersensitivity of allergic reaction to any β-lactam antimicrobial.
  • Confirmed or suspected infection with a pathogen known to be resistant to ceftriaxone.
  • Confirmed or suspected respiratory tract infection attributed to sources other than CABP pathogens.
  • Non-infectious causes of pulmonary infiltrates.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2 / Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
161 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Ceftaroline fosamil

    Drug: Ceftaroline fosamil · Drug: amoxicillin clavulanate

  • Active comparator
    Ceftriaxone

    Drug: Ceftriaxone · Drug: amoxicillin clavulanate

Interventions

  • DrugCeftaroline fosamil

    Treatment Group 1: Drug: Ceftaroline fosamil Children ≥ 6 months: IV ceftaroline fosamil 12 mg/kg for subjects weighing ≤ 33 kg or 400 mg for subjects weighing \> 33 kg will be infused over 60 (± 10) minutes every 8 hours (q8h) (± 1 hour) Children \< 6 months: Ceftaroline fosamil 8 mg/kg over 60 (± 10) minutes q8h (± 1 hour)

    Also known as: Teflaro, PPI-0903, TAK-599, TAK599, PPI0903

  • DrugCeftriaxone

    Treatment group 2: 75 mg/kg/day up to 4 g/day IV in equally divided doses, each infused over 30 (± 10) minutes q12hr (± 2 hours)

  • Drugamoxicillin clavulanate

    Oral Switch for Treatment Groups 1 and 2: PO amoxicillin clavulanate 90 mg/kg/day divided q12h in subjects with infections due to susceptible organisms on or after Study Day 4 (a minimum of 7 IV doses required if randomized to ceftaroline.)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Evaluate the safety and tolerability of ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone in pediatric subjects age 2 months to <18 years with CABP requiring hospitalization

    Evaluate the safety and tolerability of IV administered ceftaroline fosamil in children with CABP. Summaries of AEs, SAEs, deaths, laboratory evaluations (hematology studies, comprehensive and metabolic panel), vital signs.

    Time frame: Between 1 and 50 days.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Evaluate the efficacy of ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone in pediatric subjects ages 2 months to under 18 years with CABP.

    * Clinical response by subject and by baseline pathogen at Study Day 4 in the Modified Intent-to-Treat (MITT) and Microbiological modified Intent-to Treat (mMITT) Populations * Clinical stability by subject and by baseline pathogen at Study Day 4 in the MITT and mMITT Populations * Clinical outcome at EOIV, EOT, and TOC in the MITT and Clinically Evaluable (CE) Populations * Clinical and microbiological outcomes by subject and by pathogen at TOC in the mMITT and Microbiologically Evaluable (ME) Populations * Clinical relapse at LFU in the MITT Population * Emergent infections in the mMITT Population

    Time frame: Between 4 and 50 days

  2. To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of ceftaroline in pediatric subjects ages 2 months to under 18 years.

    Analyze concentrations of ceftaroline, ceftaroline fosamil (prodrug), and ceftaroline M-1 (inactive metabolite) in plasma, and, if available, in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF; if collected as part of standard of care).

    Time frame: Between 4 and 50 days

07

Study locations

44 sites
  • Investigational Site
    Long Beach, California, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Oakland, California, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Orange, California, United States
  • Investigational Site
    San Diego, California, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Syracuse, New York, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Toledo, Ohio, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Pittsuburg, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Memphis, Tennessee, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Houston, Texas, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Morgantown, West Virginia, United States
  • Investigational Site
    Capital Federal, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Investigational Site
    Cordoba, Argentina
  • Investigational Site
    Plovdiv, Bulgaria
  • Investigational Site
    Ruse, Bulgaria
  • Investigational Site2
    Sofia, Bulgaria
  • Investigational Site
    Sofia, Bulgaria
  • Investigational Site2
    Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Investigational Site3
    Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Investigational Site
    Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Investigational Site
    Athens, Attica, Greece
  • Investigational Site
    Heraklion, Crete, Greece
  • Investigational Site
    Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece
  • Investigational Site
    Larissa, Thessaly, Greece
  • Investigational Site
    Gyula, Bekes, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Ajka, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Budapest, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Nagykanisza, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Nyiregyhaza, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Szeged, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Veszprem, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
  • Investigational Site
    Lublin, Poland
  • Investigational Site
    Rzeszow, Poland
  • Investigational Site
    Warsaw, Poland
  • Investigational Site
    Cordoba, Spain
  • Investigational Site
    Madrid, Spain
  • Investigational Site
    Donetsk, Ukraine
  • Investigational Site
    Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine
  • Investigational Site
    Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine
  • Investigational Site
    Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Investigational Site
    Zaporizhia, Ukraine
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Cannavino CR, Nemeth A, Korczowski B, Bradley JS, O'Neal T, Jandourek A, Friedland HD, Kaplan SL. A Randomized, Prospective Study of Pediatric Patients With Community-acquired Pneumonia Treated With Ceftaroline Versus Ceftriaxone. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016 Jul;35(7):752-9. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001159. PubMed 27093162 ↗

Related links

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 13, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01530763
Lead sponsor
Forest Laboratories
Collaborators
AstraZeneca
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 10, 2012
Start date
Sep 2012
Primary completion
Apr 2014
Completion
Jul 2014
Last update
Jan 13, 2015

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion