Ceftaroline versus vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, a matched cohort study.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Roni Bitterman, Aya Awwad, Basel Darawsha, Hajar Dallashi, Yael Dishon-Benattar, Dina Pollack, Mical Paul
{"title":"Ceftaroline versus vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, a matched cohort study.","authors":"Roni Bitterman, Aya Awwad, Basel Darawsha, Hajar Dallashi, Yael Dishon-Benattar, Dina Pollack, Mical Paul","doi":"10.1093/jac/dkaf009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vancomycin remains the treatment-of-choice in MRSA bacteraemia (MRSAB) despite significant limitations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of ceftaroline and vancomycin monotherapy as the initial targeted therapy for MRSAB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study. Consecutive adult patients treated with ceftaroline in the years 2019-2021 were matched in a 1:2 ratio with patients who received vancomycin. Controls were matched for performance of trans-oesophageal echocardiography, Charlson comorbidity index and age. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure, defined as 90-day mortality or microbiological failure. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the ceftaroline and vancomycin-treated groups. Univariate and multivariable binary logistic regression models were created using ceftaroline treatment as the exposure variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-five patients treated with ceftaroline for MRSAB were matched with 83 patients who received vancomycin. The groups were well balanced with regards to demographics and clinical characteristics. The primary outcome of treatment failure occurred at a similar rate in patients treated with ceftaroline or vancomycin (51.1%, 23/45% versus 57.8%, 48/83, respectively, P = 0.47). In the multivariable analysis, only age (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.1, P = 0.02) was associated with treatment failure. Acute kidney injury was more common among patients treated with ceftaroline (51.1%, 23/45% versus 18.1%, 15/83, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ceftaroline was not associated with improved outcomes compared to vancomycin when given as initial treatment for MRSAB, however, it appears to be a viable alternative to vancomycin. Larger studies are needed to provide definitive results and to elucidate the risk of nephrotoxicity.</p>","PeriodicalId":14969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkaf009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vancomycin remains the treatment-of-choice in MRSA bacteraemia (MRSAB) despite significant limitations.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of ceftaroline and vancomycin monotherapy as the initial targeted therapy for MRSAB.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study. Consecutive adult patients treated with ceftaroline in the years 2019-2021 were matched in a 1:2 ratio with patients who received vancomycin. Controls were matched for performance of trans-oesophageal echocardiography, Charlson comorbidity index and age. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure, defined as 90-day mortality or microbiological failure. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the ceftaroline and vancomycin-treated groups. Univariate and multivariable binary logistic regression models were created using ceftaroline treatment as the exposure variable.

Results: Forty-five patients treated with ceftaroline for MRSAB were matched with 83 patients who received vancomycin. The groups were well balanced with regards to demographics and clinical characteristics. The primary outcome of treatment failure occurred at a similar rate in patients treated with ceftaroline or vancomycin (51.1%, 23/45% versus 57.8%, 48/83, respectively, P = 0.47). In the multivariable analysis, only age (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.1, P = 0.02) was associated with treatment failure. Acute kidney injury was more common among patients treated with ceftaroline (51.1%, 23/45% versus 18.1%, 15/83, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Ceftaroline was not associated with improved outcomes compared to vancomycin when given as initial treatment for MRSAB, however, it appears to be a viable alternative to vancomycin. Larger studies are needed to provide definitive results and to elucidate the risk of nephrotoxicity.

背景:万古霉素是治疗MRSA菌血症(MRSAB)的首选药物,尽管存在很大局限:万古霉素仍然是治疗MRSA菌血症(MRSAB)的首选药物,尽管它有很大的局限性:比较头孢他啶和万古霉素单一疗法作为 MRSAB 初始靶向疗法的有效性:我们进行了一项回顾性匹配队列研究。将 2019-2021 年期间接受头孢他啶治疗的连续成年患者与接受万古霉素治疗的患者按 1:2 的比例进行配对。对照组与经食道超声心动图检查结果、夏尔森合并症指数和年龄相匹配。主要结果是治疗失败的复合结果,即 90 天死亡率或微生物学失败。描述性统计用于比较头孢他啶治疗组和万古霉素治疗组。以头孢他啶治疗作为暴露变量,建立了单变量和多变量二元逻辑回归模型:45 名接受头孢他啶治疗的 MRSAB 患者与 83 名接受万古霉素治疗的患者进行了配对。两组在人口统计学和临床特征方面非常均衡。头孢他啶或万古霉素治疗患者治疗失败的主要结果发生率相似(分别为 51.1%,23/45% 对 57.8%,48/83,P = 0.47)。在多变量分析中,只有年龄(aOR 1.06,95% CI 1.01-1.1,P = 0.02)与治疗失败有关。急性肾损伤在接受头孢他啶治疗的患者中更为常见(51.1%,23/45% 对 18.1%,15/83,P 结论:头孢他啶与急性肾损伤无关:与万古霉素相比,头孢他啶在MRSAB的初始治疗中并不能改善疗效,但它似乎是万古霉素的一种可行替代药物。需要进行更大规模的研究来提供明确的结果,并阐明肾毒性的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.80%
发文量
423
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes articles that further knowledge and advance the science and application of antimicrobial chemotherapy with antibiotics and antifungal, antiviral and antiprotozoal agents. The Journal publishes primarily in human medicine, and articles in veterinary medicine likely to have an impact on global health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信