TY - JOUR
T1 - Cefazolin vs. antistaphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform MSSA/PSSA domain specific working group
AU - Prosty, Connor
AU - Noutsios, Dean
AU - Lee, Todd C.
AU - Daneman, Nick
AU - Davis, Joshua S.
AU - Jager, Nynke G.L.
AU - Ghanem-Zoubi, Nesrin
AU - Goodman, Anna L.
AU - Kaasch, Achim J.
AU - Kouijzer, Ilse
AU - McMullan, Brendan J.
AU - McDonald, Emily G.
AU - Tong, Steven Y.C.
AU - Ong, Sean W.X.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s)
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Background: There is debate on whether cefazolin or antistaphylococcal penicillins should be the first-line treatment for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia. Ongoing trials are investigating whether cefazolin is non-inferior to (flu)cloxacillin, but it remains uncertain whether these findings apply to other antistaphylococcal penicillins. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cefazolin with each of the individual antistaphylococcal penicillins for MSSA bacteraemia. Methods: Data sources: We updated a 2019 systematic review but specifically focused on evaluating outcomes by individual antistaphylococcal penicillins. Study eligibility criteria: Study eligibility criteria include comparative observational studies.Participants: Participants include patients with MSSA bacteraemia. Interventions: Interventions include cefazolin vs. the antistaphylococcal penicillins.Assessment of risk of bias: Assessment of risk of bias involved the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions tool. Methods of data synthesis: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality and we assessed for non-inferiority of cefazolin using a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of a pooled OR <1.2 using raw unadjusted data. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), discontinuation due to toxicity, and nephrotoxicity. Results: No randomized data have been published. A total of 30 observational studies at moderate or high risk of bias were included, which comprised 3869 patients who received cefazolin and 11 644 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 with antistaphylococcal penicillins, meeting pre-specified non-inferiority. This effect was consistent vs. 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 favoured cefazolin for 90-day mortality, TRAEs, nephrotoxicity, and discontinuation due to toxicity overall and in each comparison with individual antistaphylococcal penicillins, except for TRAEs vs. cloxacillin. Discussion: In moderate-to low-quality observational data, cefazolin was non-inferior for mortality and potentially superior for safety as compared with antistaphylococcal penicillins overall and across most individual comparisons.
AB - Background: There is debate on whether cefazolin or antistaphylococcal penicillins should be the first-line treatment for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia. Ongoing trials are investigating whether cefazolin is non-inferior to (flu)cloxacillin, but it remains uncertain whether these findings apply to other antistaphylococcal penicillins. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cefazolin with each of the individual antistaphylococcal penicillins for MSSA bacteraemia. Methods: Data sources: We updated a 2019 systematic review but specifically focused on evaluating outcomes by individual antistaphylococcal penicillins. Study eligibility criteria: Study eligibility criteria include comparative observational studies.Participants: Participants include patients with MSSA bacteraemia. Interventions: Interventions include cefazolin vs. the antistaphylococcal penicillins.Assessment of risk of bias: Assessment of risk of bias involved the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions tool. Methods of data synthesis: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality and we assessed for non-inferiority of cefazolin using a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of a pooled OR <1.2 using raw unadjusted data. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), discontinuation due to toxicity, and nephrotoxicity. Results: No randomized data have been published. A total of 30 observational studies at moderate or high risk of bias were included, which comprised 3869 patients who received cefazolin and 11 644 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 with antistaphylococcal penicillins, meeting pre-specified non-inferiority. This effect was consistent vs. 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 favoured cefazolin for 90-day mortality, TRAEs, nephrotoxicity, and discontinuation due to toxicity overall and in each comparison with individual antistaphylococcal penicillins, except for TRAEs vs. cloxacillin. Discussion: In moderate-to low-quality observational data, cefazolin was non-inferior for mortality and potentially superior for safety as compared with antistaphylococcal penicillins overall and across most individual comparisons.
KW - Antistaphylococcal penicillin
KW - Bacteraemia
KW - Bloodstream infection
KW - Cefazolin
KW - Septicaemia
KW - Staphylococcus aureus
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105007040375&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cmi.2025.04.045
DO - 10.1016/j.cmi.2025.04.045
M3 - Review article
C2 - 40349971
AN - SCOPUS:105007040375
SN - 1198-743X
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - Clinical Microbiology and Infection
JF - Clinical Microbiology and Infection
ER -