Cargando…
Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) and cefazolin have become the most frequent choices for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. However, the best therapeutic agent to treat MSSA bacteremia remains to be established. METHODS: We conducted a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30305037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9 |
_version_ | 1783362243205791744 |
---|---|
author | Shi, Changcheng Xiao, Yubo Zhang, Qi Li, Qingyu Wang, Fei Wu, Jing Lin, Nengming |
author_facet | Shi, Changcheng Xiao, Yubo Zhang, Qi Li, Qingyu Wang, Fei Wu, Jing Lin, Nengming |
author_sort | Shi, Changcheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) and cefazolin have become the most frequent choices for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. However, the best therapeutic agent to treat MSSA bacteremia remains to be established. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2018 were searched. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes included treatment failure, recurrence of bacteremia, adverse effects (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Data were extracted and pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of ten observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicate that compared to ASPs, cefazolin was associated with significant reduction in mortality (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; I(2) = 3.4%) and clinical failure (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85; I(2) = 44.9%) without increasing the recurrence of bacteremia (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.34; I(2) = 0%). There were no significant differences for the risk of anaphylaxis (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.99; I(2) = 0%) or hematotoxicity (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.88; I(2) = 0%). However, nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81; I(2) = 0%) and hepatotoxicity (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41; I(2) = 0%) were significantly lower in the cefazolin group. Moreover, cefazolin was associated with lower probability of discontinuation due to AEs compared with the ASPs (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.48; I(2) = 18%). CONCLUSION: The results of present study favor the application of cefazolin and should be regarded as important evidence to help make clinical decisions in choosing a treatment option for treating MSSA bacteremia. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6180622 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61806222018-10-18 Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis Shi, Changcheng Xiao, Yubo Zhang, Qi Li, Qingyu Wang, Fei Wu, Jing Lin, Nengming BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) and cefazolin have become the most frequent choices for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. However, the best therapeutic agent to treat MSSA bacteremia remains to be established. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2018 were searched. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes included treatment failure, recurrence of bacteremia, adverse effects (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Data were extracted and pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of ten observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicate that compared to ASPs, cefazolin was associated with significant reduction in mortality (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; I(2) = 3.4%) and clinical failure (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85; I(2) = 44.9%) without increasing the recurrence of bacteremia (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.34; I(2) = 0%). There were no significant differences for the risk of anaphylaxis (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.99; I(2) = 0%) or hematotoxicity (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.88; I(2) = 0%). However, nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81; I(2) = 0%) and hepatotoxicity (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41; I(2) = 0%) were significantly lower in the cefazolin group. Moreover, cefazolin was associated with lower probability of discontinuation due to AEs compared with the ASPs (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.48; I(2) = 18%). CONCLUSION: The results of present study favor the application of cefazolin and should be regarded as important evidence to help make clinical decisions in choosing a treatment option for treating MSSA bacteremia. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6180622/ /pubmed/30305037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Shi, Changcheng Xiao, Yubo Zhang, Qi Li, Qingyu Wang, Fei Wu, Jing Lin, Nengming Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | efficacy and safety of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30305037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3418-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shichangcheng efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xiaoyubo efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangqi efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liqingyu efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wangfei efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wujing efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT linnengming efficacyandsafetyofcefazolinversusantistaphylococcalpenicillinsforthetreatmentofmethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusbacteremiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |