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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Changcheng, Xiao, Yubo, Zhang, Qi, Li, Qingyu, Wang, Fei, Wu, Jing, Lin, Nengming
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