Comparable Effectiveness of First Week Treatment with Anti-Staphylococcal Penicillin versus Cephalosporin in Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Propensity-Score Adjusted Retrospective Study

Erik Forsblom, Eeva Ruotsalainen and Asko Järvinen

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 11, 1-13

Abstract: The objective was to compare the prognostic impact of first week treatment with anti-staphylococcal penicillin (ASP) versus cephalosporin in methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (MS-SAB). Altogether 580 patients were retrospectively followed and categorized according to first week treatment; 84% (488) received ASP (cloxacillin) and 16% (92) cephalosporin (cefuroxime or ceftriaxone). SAB management was optimized with formal bedside infectious disease specialist consultation in 88%, deep infection foci diagnosed in 77% and adjunctive rifampicin therapy given to 61% of patients. The total case fatality in 580 patients was 12% at 28 days and 18% at 90 days. When comparing effectiveness of first week ASP versus cephalosporin treatment there were no significant differences in 28-days (11% vs. 12%, OR; 1.05, 95% CI, 0.53–2.09) or 90-days (17% vs. 21% OR; 1.25, 95% CI, 0.72–2.19) outcome. In univariate analysis no prognostic impact of either first week ASP or cephalosporin treatment was observed for 28-days (OR; 0.96, 95% CI, 0.48–1.90 and OR; 1.05, 95% CI, 0.53–2.09) or 90-days (OR; 0.80, 95% CI, 0.46–1.39 and OR; 1.25, 95% CI, 0.72–2.19) outcome. Propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional regression analysis for first week treatment with cephalosporin demonstrated no significant prognostic impact at 28-days (HR 1.54, 95% CI 0.72–3.23) or 90-days (HR 1.56, 95% CI 0.88–2.86). In conclusion: There is a comparable effectiveness with respect to 28- and 90-days outcome for first week treatment with ASP versus cephalosporin in MS-SAB. The results indicate that the difference in prognostic impact between first week ASP and cephalosporin may be non-significant in patient cohorts with SAB management optimized by infectious disease specialist consultation.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167112 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 67112&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0167112

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167112

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().