Activity of ceftaroline versus ceftobiprole against staphylococci and pneumococci in the UK and Ireland: analysis of BSAC surveillance data

Carolyne Horner, Shazad Mushtaq, David Livermore, BSAC Resistance Surveillance Standing Committee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)


Background: Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole inhibit most MRSA and MDR pneumococci. Few direct comparisons of their activity have been published, but in several years (2008, 2013, 2017 and 2018) both were tested in parallel in the BSAC Resistance Surveillance Programme, giving paired results. These are reviewed.
Methods: Isolates included were bloodstream Staphylococcus aureus [n=1884 (MRSA, n=234)], bloodstream CoNS, (n=813, 574 methicillin resistant) and bloodstream (n=852) and respiratory (n=670) Streptococcus pneumoniae. MICs were determined by BSAC agar dilution and reviewed against EUCAST breakpoints; S. aureus breakpoints were assumed for CoNS.
Results: Ceftaroline MICs were mostly 2-fold lower than those of ceftobiprole, but, for all groups, MICs of both agents were strongly inter-related. Methicillin-susceptible staphylococci were universally susceptible to both agents; all MRSA were susceptible to ceftobiprole, whereas 10/234 had intermediate/high dose susceptibility to ceftaroline. Among methicillin-resistant CoNS, 88% were susceptible to both agents, but reduced ceftaroline susceptibility and ceftobiprole resistance were frequent (65%) among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus. One S. pneumoniae was resistant to both ceftaroline (MIC 0.5 mg/L) and ceftobiprole (MIC 1 mg/L) and seven others were only resistant to ceftobiprole (MIC 1 mg/L); seven of these eight pneumococci belonged to serotype 19A or 19F. No time trend in susceptibility was seen for either cephalosporin.
Conclusions: Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole have similarly good activity against staphylococci and pneumococci. Therapeutic choices between these agents should be predicated on other differentiating factors, including licensed indications, clinical experience and need for Gram-negative coverage.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberdkaa306
Pages (from-to)3239–3243
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Issue number11
Early online date29 Jul 2020
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2020

Cite this