ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Combination therapy versus monotherapy: retrospective analysis of antibiotic treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multidrug-ResistantVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines suggest treating fully penicillin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis strains causing infective endocarditis with amoxicillin combined with gentamicin or ceftriaxone, but clinical evidence to support this practice is limited and monotherapy cohorts were excluded from studies. We describe antibiotic treatment, complications, and outcomes in patients with Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis, specifically comparing monotherapy versus combination therapy.
methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected cohort of patients with definite or possible infective endocarditis from 2 English centres between 2006 and 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, relapse, and clinical cure.
results178 individuals were included: median age was 72 years (interquartile range 60-79), male sex majority (138, 78%) and mostly native valve endocarditis (108, 61%). Thirty-nine patients (22%) received monotherapy (penicillin/glycopeptide/linezolid/daptomycin), 128 (72%) combination with gentamicin, 11 (6%) combination with ceftriaxone. Patients on combination therapy with gentamicin had a statistically significant lower 30-day mortality than those treated with monotherapy (21 (16.4%) versus 15 (38.5%) p = 0.035) and higher rates of clinical cure (101 (78.9%) versus 23 (59.0%) p = 0.018). Patient receiving gentamicin were more likely to experience acute kidney injury (64 (50%) versus 11 (28.2%) p = 0.057). Ceftriaxone combination was associated with poor outcomes, but the sample size was small.
conclusionPatients treated with combination gentamicin therapy had better clinical outcomes than patients treated with monotherapy. Low-dose gentamicin regimens were associated with acute kidney injury. Patients treated with combinations were different to those treated with monotherapy and confounding remains a concern with observational analyses. An adequately powered clinical trial is needed to determine optimal treatment of enterococcal endocarditis. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.