Back

Cefazolin versus Antistaphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Prosty, C.; Noutsios, D.; Lee, T. C.; Daneman, N.; Davis, J. S.; Jager, N.; Ghanem-Zoubi, N.; Goodman, A. L.; Kaasch, A.; Kouijzer, I.; McMullan, B.; McDonald, E.; Tong, S.; Ong, S.

2025-02-21 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.02.17.25322429 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThere is debate on whether cefazolin or antistaphylococcal penicillins should be the first-line treatment for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia. Ongoing trials are investigating whether cefazolin is non-inferior to (flu)cloxacillin, but it remains uncertain whether these findings would apply to other antistaphylococcal penicillins. ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cefazolin to each of the individual antistaphylococcal penicillins for MSSA bacteremia. MethodsO_ST_ABSData SourcesC_ST_ABSWe updated a 2019 systematic review but specifically focused on evaluating outcomes by individual antistaphylococcal penicillins. Study Eligibility CriteriaComparative observational studies. ParticipantsPatients with MSSA bacteremia. InterventionsCefazolin versus the antistaphylococcal penicillins. Assessment of Risk of BiasThe risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions tool. Methods of Data SynthesisThe primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, and we assessed for non-inferiority of cefazolin using a prespecified non-inferiority margin of a pooled odds ratio (OR) <1.2. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), discontinuation due to toxicity, and nephrotoxicity. ResultsNo randomized data have been published. 30 observational studies at moderate or high risk of bias were included, which comprised 3869 patients who received cefazolin and 11644 patients who received antistaphylococcal penicillins (flucloxacillin=6721, unspecified=2440, nafcillin=1305, cloxacillin=1258, and oxacillin=120). Cefazolin was associated with a reduced odds of 30-day all-cause mortality (OR=0.73, 95%CI=0.62-0.85) compared to antistaphylococcal penicillins, meeting pre-specified non-inferiority as well as superiority. This effect was consistent versus flucloxacillin (OR=0.92, 95%CI=0.73-1.16), nafcillin (OR=0.58, 95%CI=0.28-1.17), cloxacillin (OR=0.42, 95%CI=0.11-1.58), and oxacillin (OR=0.31, 95%CI=0.03-2.75). Point estimates favored cefazolin for 90-day mortality, TRAEs, nephrotoxicity, and discontinuation due to toxicity overall and in each comparison with individual antistaphylococcal penicillins, except for TRAEs versus cloxacillin. ConclusionsIn moderate to low quality observational data, cefazolin was associated with superior effectiveness and safety as compared to antistaphylococcal penicillins overall and individually.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
3
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
4
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.7%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
187 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
8
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
9
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Journal of Infection
78 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
14
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
15
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
16
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
129 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.1%
18
Eurosurveillance
83 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
19
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
21
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
22
Nature Microbiology
155 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
25
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
26
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
27
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
28
Vaccine
203 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%