Infection · 2024
Flucloxacillin and cefazolin for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmidt-Hellerau Kirsten, Breuninger Marianne, Kessel Johanna, Vehreschild Maria J G T, Paul Gregor, Reusch Jomana, Jung Norma, Hellmich Martin, Fätkenheuer Gerd
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Antistaphylococcal penicillins and cefazolin have been used as first line therapy in Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection. While efficacy of both regimens seems to be similar, the compounds may differ with regard to tolerability. This study aims to describe the clinical use of cefazolin and flucloxacillin, focussing on discontinuation or change of anti-infective agent due to adverse events.
METHODS: This observational prospective study was conducted at two German tertiary care centres with an internal recommendation of flucloxacillin for MSSA-BSI in one, and of cefazolin in the other centre. Adverse events were registered weekly under treatment and at a 90-day follow-up. Descriptive analysis was complemented by a propensity score analysis comparing adverse events (stratified rank-based test applied to the sum of Common Terminology Criteria for adverse events ratings per patient).
RESULTS: Of 71 patients included, therapy was initiated with flucloxacillin in 56 (79%), and with cefazolin in 15 (21%). The propensity score analysis indicates a statistically significant difference concerning the severity of adverse events between the treatment groups in favour of cefazolin (p = 0.019). Adverse events led to discontinuation of flucloxacillin in 7 individuals (13% of all patients receiving flucloxacillin). Clinical outcome was not different among treatment groups.
CONCLUSION: Using cefazolin rather than flucloxacillin as a first line agent for treatment of MSSA-BSI is supported by these clinical data.
METHODS: This observational prospective study was conducted at two German tertiary care centres with an internal recommendation of flucloxacillin for MSSA-BSI in one, and of cefazolin in the other centre. Adverse events were registered weekly under treatment and at a 90-day follow-up. Descriptive analysis was complemented by a propensity score analysis comparing adverse events (stratified rank-based test applied to the sum of Common Terminology Criteria for adverse events ratings per patient).
RESULTS: Of 71 patients included, therapy was initiated with flucloxacillin in 56 (79%), and with cefazolin in 15 (21%). The propensity score analysis indicates a statistically significant difference concerning the severity of adverse events between the treatment groups in favour of cefazolin (p = 0.019). Adverse events led to discontinuation of flucloxacillin in 7 individuals (13% of all patients receiving flucloxacillin). Clinical outcome was not different among treatment groups.
CONCLUSION: Using cefazolin rather than flucloxacillin as a first line agent for treatment of MSSA-BSI is supported by these clinical data.