ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2024
Effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin in endocarditis due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus spp.: a multicenter propensity weighted cohort study.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining Safe and Effective Cefazolin Dosing Regimens for MSSA Infections in the CNS: Leveraging Sparse Real-World Data and PBPK Modeling.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a systematic review of observational studies.Therapeutic 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) due to methicillin-sensitive Staphylococci (MSS).
methodsData were retrospectively collected on patients treated for a definite MSS endocarditis who received cefazolin or cloxacillin for at least 10 consecutive days in six French hospitals between January-1 2014 and December-31 2020. The primary endpoint was treatment failure defined as a composite of death within 90 days of starting antibiotherapy, or embolic event during antibiotherapy, or relapse of IE within 90 days of stopping antibiotherapy. We used Cox regression adjusted for the inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving cefazolin.
results192 patients were included (median age 67.8 years). IE was caused by S.aureus in 175 (91.1%) and by coagulase-negative staphylococci in 17 (8.9%). Ninety-four patients (48.9%) received cefazolin, and 98 (51%) received cloxacillin. 34 patients (34.7%) with cefazolin and 26 (27.7%) with cloxacillin met the composite primary endpoint, with no significant differences between groups (adjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.03). There were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints or biological safety events.
conclusionThe effectiveness of cefazolin did not significantly differ from cloxacillin for the treatment of MSS endocarditis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38806841What 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.