{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin in endocarditis due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus spp.: a multicenter propensity weighted cohort study.
{Author}: Destrem AL;Maillard A;Simonet M;Simeon S;Contejean A;Vignau C;Pires L;Isnard M;Vitrat V;Delory T;Maillet M;
{Journal}: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 May 28
{Factor}: 5.103
{DOI}: 10.1007/s10096-024-04851-6
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To compare the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) due to methicillin-sensitive Staphylococci (MSS).<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Data were retrospectively collected on patients treated for a definite MSS endocarditis who received cefazolin or cloxacillin for at least 10 consecutive days in six French hospitals between January-1 2014 and December-31 2020. The primary endpoint was treatment failure defined as a composite of death within 90 days of starting antibiotherapy, or embolic event during antibiotherapy, or relapse of IE within 90 days of stopping antibiotherapy. We used Cox regression adjusted for the inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving cefazolin.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>192 patients were included (median age 67.8 years). IE was caused by S.aureus in 175 (91.1%) and by coagulase-negative staphylococci in 17 (8.9%). Ninety-four patients (48.9%) received cefazolin, and 98 (51%) received cloxacillin. 34 patients (34.7%) with cefazolin and 26 (27.7%) with cloxacillin met the composite primary endpoint, with no significant differences between groups (adjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.03). There were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints or biological safety events.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The effectiveness of cefazolin did not significantly differ from cloxacillin for the treatment of MSS endocarditis.