Infection

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 769–774

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of cefazolin and ceftriaxone

Clinical and Epidemiological Study

Abstract

Purpose

Although the antistaphylococcal penicillins remain the drugs of choice for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections, cefazolin and ceftriaxone are often prescribed due to their less frequent dosing and reduced cost. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) with ceftriaxone or cefazolin for the treatment of MSSA infections.

Methods

A retrospective study was carried out of 122 patients evaluated at Ben Taub and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospitals in Houston, Texas, between January 1, 2006, and March 31, 2012, with a documented MSSA infection who received cefazolin or ceftriaxone as OPAT. A favorable clinical outcome was determined by their primary care physician’s assessment at follow-up in the clinic.

Results

Out of 122 patients, 78 (64 %) were treated with cefazolin and 44 (36 %) with ceftriaxone. Patients were predominantly young (median age 46 years), male (54.2 %), and Hispanic (51.2 %). Patients were similar in terms of baseline demographics, types of infections, and management of infections. Favorable clinical outcomes were similar between cefazolin and ceftriaxone (67.9 versus 79.8 %, p = 0.17), along with a similar incidence of adverse events and complications (5.1 versus 2.3 %, p = 0.65, and 26.9 versus 18.2 %, p = 0.38, respectively).

Conclusions

OPAT with either cefazolin or ceftriaxone is similar in terms of favorable outcomes, adverse events, and complications when treating MSSA infections. A randomized clinical trial is needed in order to confirm these results.

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureus Ceftriaxone OPAT Cefazolin Methicillin-susceptible 

References

  1. 1.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cox AM, Malani PN, Wiseman SW, Kauffman CA. Home intravenous antimicrobial infusion therapy: a viable option in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:645–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med. 1994;96:200–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guglielmo BJ, Luber AD, Paletta D Jr, Jacobs RA. Ceftriaxone therapy for staphylococcal osteomyelitis: a review. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:205–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nannini EC, Singh KV, Murray BE. Relapse of type A beta-lactamase-producing Staphylococcus aureus native valve endocarditis during cefazolin therapy: revisiting the issue. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:1194–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nannini EC, Stryjewski ME, Singh KV, Bourgogne A, Rude TH, Corey GR, Fowler VG Jr, Murray BE. Inoculum effect with cefazolin among clinical isolates of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: frequency and possible cause of cefazolin treatment failure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:3437–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nicholson SC, Welte T, File TM Jr, Strauss RS, Michiels B, Kaul P, Balis D, Arbit D, Amsler K, Noel GJ. A randomised, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with ceftriaxone with or without linezolid for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalisation. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39:240–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paul M, Zemer-Wassercug N, Talker O, Lishtzinsky Y, Lev B, Samra Z, Leibovici L, Bishara J. Are all beta-lactams similarly effective in the treatment of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;17:1581–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinn EL, Pohlod D, Madhavan T, Burch K, Fisher E, Cox F. Clinical experiences with cefazolin and other cephalosporins in bacterial endocarditis. J Infect Dis. 1973;128:S386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutherland R, Croydon EA, Rolinson GN. Flucloxacillin, a new isoxazolyl penicillin, compared with oxacillin, cloxacillin, and dicloxacillin. Br Med J. 1970;4:455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tice AD, Hoaglund PA, Shoultz DA. Outcomes of osteomyelitis among patients treated with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Am J Med. 2003;114:723–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tice AD, Hoaglund PA, Shoultz DA. Risk factors and treatment outcomes in osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:1261–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tice AD, Rehm SJ, Dalovisio JR, Bradley JS, Martinelli LP, Graham DR, Gainer RB, Kunkel MJ, Yancey RW, Williams DN; IDSA. Practice guidelines for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. IDSA guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1651–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wieland BW, Marcantoni JR, Bommarito KM, Warren DK, Marschall J. A retrospective comparison of ceftriaxone versus oxacillin for osteoarticular infections due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:585–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winters RW, Parver AK, Sansbury JD. Home infusion therapy: a service and demographic profile: a report for the National Alliance for Infusion Therapy. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Infusion Therapy; 1992. p. 1–61.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wynn M, Dalovisio JR, Tice AD, Jiang X. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for infections with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. South Med J. 2005;98:590–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PharmacyHarris County Hospital DistrictHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy PracticeTexas A&M Health Science Center Rangel College of PharmacyHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious DiseasesUniversity of Texas Health Sciences CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations