Cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus spinal epidural abscess: a retrospective cohort study

被引:6
|
作者
Bai, Anthony D. [1 ]
Findlater, Aidan [2 ]
Irfan, Neal [3 ]
Singhal, Nishma [2 ]
Loeb, Mark [2 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Hlth Res Methodol Program, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Div Infect Dis, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
Cefazolin; Antistaphylococcal penicillin; Staphylococcus aureus; Methicillin-susceptible; MSSA; Spinal epidural abscess; PROPORTIONS; INFECTIONS; OXACILLIN;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106429
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Objectives: We compared the effectiveness of cefazolin and cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) spinal epidural abscess (SEA). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with MSSA SEA from two academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, between 2014 and 2020. Patients treated with cefazolin were compared to those treated with cloxacillin. Co-primary outcomes included 90-day mortality, antibiotic failure, adverse reactions and recurrence. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance important prognostic factors and to estimate an adjusted risk difference. Results: Of 98 patients with MSSA SEA, 50 and 48 patients were treated with cefazolin and cloxacillin, respectively. Mortality at 90 days was 8% and 13% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively ( P = 0.52). The antibiotic failure rate was 12% and 19% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively ( P = 0.41). The serious adverse reactions rate was 0% and 4% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively ( P = 0.24). The recurrence rate was 2% and 8% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively ( P = 0.20). The adjusted risk difference for mortality at 90 days was -1% [95% confidence interval (CI) -10% to 8%] favouring cefazolin. The adjusted risk differences for antibiotic failure, adverse reactions and recurrence were 1% (95% CI -12% to 14%), -5% (95% CI -11% to 2%) and -18% (-36% to -1%) respectively. Conclusion: Cefazolin is likely as effective as an antistaphylococcal penicillin and may be considered as a first-line treatment for MSSA SEA. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Efficacy of cloxacillin versus cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (CloCeBa): study protocol for a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial
    Burdet, Charles
    Loubet, Paul
    Le Moing, Vincent
    Vindrios, William
    Esposito-Farese, Marina
    Linard, Morgane
    Ferry, Tristan
    Massias, Laurent
    Tattevin, Pierre
    Wolff, Michel
    Vandenesch, Francois
    Grall, Nathalie
    Quintin, Caroline
    Mentre, France
    Duval, Xavier
    Lescure, Francois-Xavier
    BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (08):
  • [22] Comparative effectiveness of nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia
    Schweizer, Marin L.
    Furuno, Jon P.
    Harris, Anthony D.
    Johnson, J. Kristie
    Shardell, Michelle D.
    McGregor, Jessina C.
    Thom, Kerri A.
    Cosgrove, Sara E.
    Sakoulas, George
    Perencevich, Eli N.
    BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2011, 11
  • [23] Comparative effectiveness of nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia
    Marin L Schweizer
    Jon P Furuno
    Anthony D Harris
    J Kristie Johnson
    Michelle D Shardell
    Jessina C McGregor
    Kerri A Thom
    Sara E Cosgrove
    George Sakoulas
    Eli N Perencevich
    BMC Infectious Diseases, 11
  • [24] Relative efficacy of cefuroxime versus dicloxacillin as definitive antimicrobial therapy in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a propensity-score adjusted retrospective cohort study
    Rasmussen, Jon Bjarke
    Knudsen, Jenny Dahl
    Arpi, Magnus
    Schonheyder, Henrik Carl
    Benfield, Thomas
    Ostergaard, Christian
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2014, 69 (02) : 506 - 514
  • [25] Is Cefazolin Inferior to Nafcillin for Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia?
    Lee, Shinwon
    Choe, Pyoeng Gyun
    Song, Kyoung-Ho
    Park, Sang-Won
    Kim, Hong Bin
    Kim, Nam Joong
    Kim, Eui-Chong
    Park, Wan Beom
    Oh, Myoung-don
    ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 2011, 55 (11) : 5122 - 5126
  • [26] Cefazolin inoculum effect in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates
    Tsuji, Shuma
    Gotoh, Kazuyoshi
    Manabe, Tadahiro
    Iio, Koji
    Fukushima, Shinnosuke
    Matsushita, Osamu
    Hagiya, Hideharu
    DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2024, 110 (01)
  • [27] Comparison of nafcillin and cefazolin for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bacteremia
    Algrim, Amie
    Twilla, Jennifer
    Samarin, Michael
    Cummings, Carolyn
    PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2017, 37 (12): : E184 - E184
  • [28] Comparison of Cefazolin versus Oxacillin for Treatment of Complicated Bacteremia Caused by Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus
    Li, Julius
    Echevarria, Kelly L.
    Hughes, Darrel W.
    Cadena, Jose A.
    Bowling, Jason E.
    Lewis, James S., II
    ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 2014, 58 (09) : 5117 - 5124
  • [29] Retrospective Analysis of Adverse Drug Events Between Nafcillin Versus Cefazolin for Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Infections
    Chan, Lynn
    Chan-Tompkins, Noreen H.
    Como, James
    Guarascio, Anthony J.
    ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2020, 54 (07) : 662 - 668
  • [30] A comparison of safety and outcomes with cefazolin versus nafcillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections
    Miller, Matthew A.
    Fish, Douglas N.
    Barber, Gerard R.
    Barron, Michelle A.
    Goolsby, Tiffany A.
    Moine, Pierre
    Mueller, Scott W.
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY IMMUNOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2020, 53 (02) : 321 - 327