CAYSTON® Guidelines and Information
Proven efficacy allows for the use of CAYSTON as a standard of care for the maintenance of lung health
The Level A recommendation is for patients with moderate (FEV1 40%-69%) to severe (FEV1 <40%) disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) infection.
The Level B recommendation is for patients with mild (FEV1 70%-89%) disease and Pa infection.10
CAYSTON is indicated in patients 7 years and older with an FEV1 between 25%-75% predicted.9
(Adapted from Table 4 from the Cystic Fibrosis Pulmonary Guidelines: Chronic Medications for Maintenance of Lung Health.10)
|Treatment||Recommendation||Certainty of Net Benefit†||Estimate of Net Benefit†||Recommendation|
|Inhaled aztreonam: Moderate (FEV1 40%- 69%) to Severe (FEV1 <40%) disease||"For individuals with CF, 6 years of age and older, with moderate to severe lung disease and Pa persistently present in cultures of the airways, the CFF* strongly recommends the chronic use of inhaled aztreonam to improve lung function…"||
|Inhaled aztreonam: Mild (FEV1 70%-89%) disease||"For individuals with CF, 6 years of age and older, with mild lung disease and Pa persistently present in cultures of the airways, the CFF recommends the chronic use of inhaled aztreonam to improve lung function…"||
This is not a complete version of the table. See page 684 of publication for full table. CAYSTON-specific information only shown here.
*Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
†The overall strength of the evidence is based on the certainty of the magnitude of benefit defined as benefit minus harm.
‡High Quality of Evidence. Available evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative populations. This conclusion is therefore unlikely to be strongly affected by the results of future studies.
§Moderate Quality of Evidence. Available evidence is sufficient to determine the effects of the preventative service on health outcomes, but confidence in the estimate is constrained by the number, size, or quality of individual studies; inconsistency on findings across individual studies; limited generalizability of findings to routine primary care practice; lack of coherence in the chain of evidence. As more information becomes available, the magnitude or direction of the observed effect could change, and this change may be large enough to alter the conclusion.