Evidence Hub

Cefadroxil as Oral Transitional Therapy for Gram-Positive Bacteremia With or Without Non-Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Clark DC, Baden R, Banerjee J, Bedrossian R, Chute H, Davar K, Deng D, Donnelly M et al.

Open forum infectious diseases, 2026

323 participants

Abstract

Background: Oral cefadroxil has favorable pharmacokinetics for the treatment of bloodstream infection (BSI) and osteomyelitis caused by Gram-positive cocci (GPC), but limited clinical data exist.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study between September 2022 and April 2025 assessing cefadroxil versus intravenous (IV)-only or other oral transitional therapy in adults with susceptible GPC BSI, with or without osteomyelitis. No patients with endocarditis, vertebral osteomyelitis, or prosthetic or central nervous system infections were included. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as 90-day survival without infection progression or relapse. Prioritized secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, recurrent bacteremia, and readmission at 90 days.

Results: Of 323 patients with BSI, 58 were treated with cefadroxil, 72 IV only, and 193 with other oral antibiotics. Rates of osteomyelitis were comparable in each cohort, but skin and soft-tissue infections were a more common source of bacteremia in cefadroxil (52%) than either IV (28%, P = .01) or orally (PO) (31%, P = .003) cohorts. Staphylococcus aureus was more frequent in the IV (60%) than cefadroxil cohort (36%, P = .008). Nevertheless, cefadroxil-treated patients had a similar case mix index, expected mortality, and expected length of stay as the IV and PO cohorts, indicating comparable populations. Treatment success was similar for cefadroxil (91%), IV (94%, P = .51), and other oral (93%, P…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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: 323 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