ArticlePloS one2024
Short versus long duration of ceftaroline combination therapy and outcomes in persistent or high-grade MRSA bacteremia: A retrospective single-center study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of early vs delayed initiation of dual antimicrobial salvage therapy on clinical outcomes in MRSA bacteremia.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Observational
- Ceftaroline for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Endovascular Infection.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- [Requirements for the rational use of antibiotics based on antibiotic stewardship].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Review
- Adjunctive β-lactams forTherapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is associated with high mortality rates. Despite antibiotic therapy, persistent bacteremia is challenging to treat. Combination therapy with ceftaroline has emerged as a potential treatment option; however, the optimal duration and clinical implications after bacteremia clearance are unknown.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study examined patients with high-grade or persistent MRSA bacteremia who were treated with ceftaroline combination therapy at the University of New Mexico Hospital between January 2014 and June 2021. Patients were categorized into short- (<7 days) or long-duration (≥7 days) groups based on the duration of combination therapy after bacteremia clearance. Outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality, bacteremia recurrence, post-bacteremia clearance length of stay, and adverse events.
resultsA total of 32 patients were included in this study. The most common sources of bacteremia were bone/joint and endovascular (28.1%, 9/32 each). The median duration of combination therapy after clearance was seven days (IQR 2.8, 11). Patients in the long-duration group had a lower Charlson comorbidity index (1.0 vs 5.5, p = 0.017) than those in the short-duration group. After adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference in the 30-day all-cause mortality between the groups (AOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.007-1.85, p = 0.18). No association was found between combination therapy duration and recurrence (OR 2.53, 95% CI 0.19-inf, p = 0.24) or adverse drug events (OR 3.46, 95% CI 0.39-74.86, p = 0.31). After controlling for total hospital length of stay, there was no significant difference in the post-bacteremia clearance length of stay between the two groups (p = 0.37).
conclusionsProlonging ceftaroline combination therapy after bacteremia clearance did not significantly improve outcomes in patients with persistent or high-grade MRSA bacteremia. The limitations of this study warrant cautious interpretation of its results. Larger studies are needed to determine the optimal duration and role of combination therapy for this difficult-to-treat infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.