For four decades, clinicians treating Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia faced a question without a rigorous randomized answer: could cefazolin — cheaper, easier to administer, and anecdotally more renal-sparing than the guideline-preferred antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASP) — substitute for nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin? The SNAP trial, reported this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, has now produced the most definitive evidence yet: on survival, cefazolin does not lose.
Trial Design and Enrollment
SNAP (Staphylococcal Bacteremia Antibiotic Treatment Platform) enrolled 1,303 adults with confirmed methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia at centers across the United States, Canada, and Australia, using an adaptive Bayesian platform design that allowed continuous learning and pre-specified interim decisions. Participants were randomized to cefazolin 2 g intravenously every eight hours or to an ASP — nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin at investigator’s choice — for a minimum of 14 days, with duration adjusted for source and clinical response.
The primary endpoint was 90-day all-cause mortality. A key secondary endpoint was acute kidney injury (AKI) within 14 days, defined by KDIGO criteria.
What the Data Showed
Ninety-day mortality was 15.0% with cefazolin versus 17.0% with ASP. The adjusted odds ratio of 0.81 (95% credible interval 0.59–1.12) satisfied the pre-specified Bayesian noninferiority criterion; the posterior probability that cefazolin was noninferior exceeded the trial’s threshold.
The kidney signal was not subtle. AKI at 14 days occurred in 13.9% of cefazolin recipients versus 19.6% in the ASP group (aOR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.50–0.89) — a 32% relative reduction in early nephrotoxicity.
The AKI advantage is clinically meaningful because bacteremia patients frequently accumulate concurrent nephrotoxic exposures: empiric vancomycin while cultures are pending, iodinated contrast for source-control imaging, and vasopressors in septic shock. Replacing the antistaphylococcal penicillin with cefazolin removes one layer of that stacked renal hazard.
Caveats and Scope
SNAP was not designed as a superiority trial. The mortality credible interval includes values modestly favoring ASP, and noninferiority does not establish that cefazolin is better on survival — only that it is not meaningfully worse. The trial enrolled predominantly catheter-related bacteremia; patients with endocarditis, particularly prosthetic-valve or device-associated infection, were managed with individualized therapy and are incompletely represented in the randomized cohort. Whether the survival equivalence extends to CNS seeding or complicated left-sided endocarditis requires further study.
Notwithstanding those limits, SNAP represents the largest randomized comparison of cefazolin versus ASP in MSSA bacteremia by a substantial margin. The platform design’s Bayesian framework also sets a precedent: future arms can be added without starting a new trial, enabling the research community to build cumulative evidence for additional management questions in this common and lethal infection.
SNAP Investigators. Cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins for MSSA bacteremia. N Engl J Med. 2026;394:2329–2339. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2602847.