Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38296936›Full record

Observational studyInfection2024

Flucloxacillin and cefazolin for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection.

Kirsten Schmidt-Hellerau, Marianne Breuninger, Johanna Kessel, Maria J G T Vehreschild, Gregor Paul, Jomana Reusch, Norma Jung, Martin Hellmich, Gerd Fätkenheuer

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirsten Schmidt-HellerauDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. kirsten.schmidt-hellerau@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-9565
Marianne BreuningerDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Johanna KesselDepartment of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3246-5219
Maria J G T VehreschildDepartment of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0446-3224
Gregor PaulDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jomana ReuschInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Norma JungDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5740-0772
Martin HellmichInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5174-928X
Gerd FätkenheuerDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5054-1871
University of Cologne · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) BR 5807/1-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAntistaphylococcal 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.

methodsThis 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).

resultsOf 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.

conclusionUsing cefazolin rather than flucloxacillin as a first line agent for treatment of MSSA-BSI is supported by these clinical data.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCefazolinFloxacillinStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteremiaFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefazolinFloxacillinAntistaphylococcal penicillinsBacteraemiaCefazolinFlucloxacillinMSSAStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID38296936
PMCPMC11142999
OpenAlexW4391380546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.