ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Clinical outcome of combination of vancomycin and ceftaroline versus vancomycin monotherapy for treatment of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Sepsis biomarkers: recent advances and future perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of combination therapies for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections is widely debated.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included adults with MRSA bacteraemia treated between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Patients receiving combination therapy with vancomycin and ceftaroline were matched in a 2:1 ratio with those on vancomycin monotherapy based on bacteraemia source and illness severity. The primary outcome was frequency of bacteraemia recurrence. Secondary outcomes were all cause 30/90-day mortality, recurrence or mortality at 30/90 days and in hospital length of stay.
resultsOf 57 patients included, 37 (65%) were in the combination group. The overall intensive care unit admission rate was 63.2% (36/57) and the Pitt Bacteraemia Score was 1 [0-4] at the time of diagnosis. The most common source of infection was endovascular/endocarditis (n = 36, 63.2%). Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the monotherapy and combination group of patients, except for higher body mass index (32.5 [25.5-36.4] vs. 24.4 [20.9-29], p = 0.004) and a greater immunosuppression prevalence (3 (15%) vs. 0 (0%), p = 0.039) in monotherapy group. There was no significant difference in bacteraemia recurrence (3 (15%) vs. 4 (10.8%), p = 0.7) or all-cause 30-day mortality (3 (15%) vs. 4 (10.8%), p = 0.7) between the two groups.
conclusionThe results of this study are limited by a retrospective observational design; however, combination of vancomycin and ceftaroline for MRSA bacteraemia was not associated with lower bacteraemia recurrence or mortality compared to vancomycin monotherapy.
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.