Evidence Hub

Comparison of the efficacy of nafcillin and glycopeptides as definitive therapy for patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a retrospective cohort study

D. Oh, Jung Ju Kim, Jinnam Kim, Hye Seong, Se-Ju Lee, Y. C. Kim, Eun Jin Kim, I. Jung et al.

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2018

188 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BackgroundStudies have shown that the prognosis of the treatment of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) with glycopeptides is inferior compared to treatment with β-lactam. However, there are only few studies comparing treatment with antistaphylococcal penicillin alone to glycopeptide treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of nafcillin, an antistaphylococcal penicillin, with that of glycopeptides as a definitive therapy for MSSA bacteremia.MethodsPatients with MSSA bacteremia recruited from a tertiary referral hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Demographic characteristics, laboratory data, and clinical outcome of the treatment were compared between a group receiving nafcillin and a group receiving glycopeptides.ResultsA total of 188 patients with MSSA bacteremia were included in this study. The glycopeptide group had a higher rate of malignancy (28.6 vs. 60.8%, p < 0.001) and proportion of healthcare-associated infections (47.3 vs. 72.2%, p < 0.001) compared to the nafcillin group. The ratio of skin and soft tissue infections (30.0 vs. 16.7%, p = 0.037) and bone and joint infections (17.8 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.022), as well as levels of C-reactive protein (139.60 vs. 107.61 mg/dL, p = 0.022) were higher in the nafcillin group. All-cause 28-day mortality was significantly high in the glycopeptide group (7.7 vs. 20.6%, p = 0.013).ConclusionIn patients with MSSA bacteremia, all-cause 28-day mortality rate was higher in a group treated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 188 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free