Real-life experience with ceftobiprole in Canada: Results from the CLEAR (CanadianLEadership onAntimicrobialReal-life usage) registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation cephalosporin with a favourable safety profile. Published data on the clinical use of ceftobiprole are limited. We report use of ceftobiprole in Canadian patients using data captured by the CLEAR registry. METHODS: The CLEAR registry uses the web-based research data management program REDCap™ (online survey) to facilitate clinicians entering details associated with their clinical experiences using ceftobiprole. RESULTS: Data were available for 38 patients treated with ceftobiprole. The most common infections treated were endocarditis (42.1% of patients), bone and joint infection (23.7%) and hospital-associated bacterial pneumonia (15.8%). 92.1% of patients had bacteraemia and 21.1% were in intensive care. Ceftobiprole was used because of failure of (71.1%), resistance to (18.4%) or adverse effects from (10.5%) previously prescribed antimicrobial agents. Ceftobiprole was primarily used as directed therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (94.7% of patients). Ceftobiprole susceptibility testing was performed on isolates from 47.4% of patients. It was used concomitantly with daptomycin in 55.3% of patients and with vancomycin in 18.4% of patients. Treatment duration was primarily >10 days (65.8% of patients) with microbiological success in 97.0% and clinical success in 84.8% of patients. 2.6% of patients had gastrointestinal adverse effects. CONCLUSION: In Canada to date, ceftobiprole is used as directed therapy to treat a variety of severe infections caused by MRSA. It is primarily used in patients failing previous antimicrobials, is frequently added to, and thus used in combination with daptomycin or vancomycin with high microbiological and clinical cure rates and an excellent safety profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".