Current Evidence on Oral Antibiotics for Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review

Successful Treatment of Infective Endocarditis With Oral Antibiotics: A Case Report

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious and potentially life-threatening infection of the heart valves. It is commonly treated with prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotics, and in some cases, surgical intervention may also be necessary. While the use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of IE is generally limited, there are select cases where they may be considered as an alternative treatment option. Here, we report a case of staphylococcal right-sided IE successfully treated with oral antibiotics (linezolid and rifampicin). Our case highlights the potential for oral antibiotics to be used as step-down therapy for select patients with IE.

Heartbreaking Decisions: The Dogma and Uncertainties of Antimicrobial Therapy in Infective Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but increasingly prevalent disease with high morbidity and mortality, requiring antimicrobials and at times surgical intervention. Through the decades of healthcare professionals' experience with managing IE, certain dogmas and uncertainties have arisen around its pharmacotherapy. The introduction of new antimicrobials and novel combinations are exciting developments but also further complicate IE treatment choices. In this review, we provide and evaluate the relevant evidence focused around contemporary debates in IE treatment pharmacotherapy, including beta-lactam choice in MSSA IE, combination therapies (aminoglycosides, ceftaroline), the use of oral antimicrobials, the role of rifamycins, and long-acting lipoglycopeptides.

The Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance in Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Infective Endocarditis: A Multicentric Retrospective Analysis

Background and Objectives: Multidrug-resistant microorganisms have made treating bacterial infections challenging. Resistance to antibiotics is expected to overcome efforts to produce new, effective antibacterial medication that is lifesaving in many situations. Infective endocarditis (IE) is a life-threatening infection that affects 5–15 per 100,000 patients annually and requires rapid antibiotic therapy to prevent morbidity and mortality. Materials and Methods: The present research assessed IE cases over five years, from a multicentric database, with the main objective of determining the degree of antibiotic resistance in these patients, stratified by Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Results: Bad oral hygiene was present in 58.6% of patients from the Gram-negative group (vs. 38.7% in the Gram-positive group). Non-valvular heart disease was identified in approximately 40% of all patients, and valvopathies in approximately 20%. It was observed that 37.9% of Gram-negative IE bacteria were resistant to three or more antibiotics, whereas 20.7% were susceptible. Among Gram-positive infections, S. aureus was the most commonly involved pathogen, with a multidrug-resistant pattern in 11.2% of patients, while Acinetobacter baumannii had the highest resistance pattern of all Gram-negative pathogens, with 27.4% of all samples resistant to three or more antibiotics. Patients with Gram-negative IE were 4.2 times more likely to die. The mortality risk was 4 times higher when bacteria resistant to two or more antibiotics was involved and 5.7 times higher with resistance patterns to three or more antibiotics than the reference group with no antibiotic resistance. Peripheral catheters were the most common cause of multi-resistant IE, followed by heart surgery, dental procedures, and ENT interventions. Conclusions: Even though Gram-positive infections were the most frequent (83.0% of all cases), Gram-negative IE infections are substantially more deadly than Gram-positive IE infections. However, it was also observed that patients with Gram-negative infections were more likely to have underlying comorbidities, be institutionalized, and be underweight. Although the Gram-negative infections were more severe, their resistance patterns were similar to Gram-positive bacteria. As resistance patterns increase, more efforts should be made to prevent a healthcare catastrophe. At the same time, careful prophylaxis should be considered in patients at risk, including those with central catheters, undergoing dental procedures, and with poor oral hygiene.

Oral antibiotics for infective endocarditis: a clinical review

Current guidelines for management of infective endocarditis (IE) advise 4-6 weeks of IV antibiotics. This is based on historical data from animal models, which set a precedent for high peak serum antimicrobial levels, thought to be only achievable with IV therapy. However, there has been increasing recent interest in oral antibiotics as an alternative to prolonged parenteral therapy, not limited to treatment of IE. This review examines the theory behind parenteral antibiotic administration with reference to the MICs of relevant pathogens. By comparing published serum antimicrobial levels after oral and IV administration we suggest that safe levels of commonly used antibiotics can be achieved orally. We have then reviewed the literature to date on oral antibiotics for IE. The largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) in this area, the POET trial, concluded that oral therapy was non-inferior to prolonged IV therapy in stable patients with left-sided IE. Additionally, there have been two smaller RCTs published, as well as a number of observational studies over the last 50 years, utilizing a variety of different patient groups, methods and treatment strategies. This body of evidence gives weight to a potential shift in practice towards oral therapy, primarily as a step-down treatment. We conclude that pharmacological data offer theoretical reassurance for the safety of oral therapy. This is coupled with a growing evidence base for non-inferiority of oral antimicrobials compared with prolonged parenteral therapy in practice.

Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis and Outpatient Treatment: A Systematic Review of Current Alternatives

The selection of the best alternative for Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (IE) continuation treatment in the outpatient setting is still challenging. Three databases were searched, reporting antibiotic therapies against E. faecalis IE in or suitable for the outpatient setting. Articles the results of which were identified by species and treatment regimen were included. The quality of the studies was assessed accordingly with the study design. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively. In total, 18 studies were included. The treatment regimens reported were classified regarding the main antibiotic used as regimen, based on Aminoglycosides, dual β-lactam, teicoplanin, daptomycin or dalbavancin or oral therapy. The regimens based on aminoglycosides and dual β-lactam combinations are the treatment alternatives which gather more evidence regarding their efficacy. Dual β-lactam is the preferred option for high level aminoglycoside resistance strains, and for to its reduced nephrotoxicity, while its adaptation to the outpatient setting has been poorly documented. Less evidence supports the remaining alternatives, but many of them have been successfully adapted to outpatient care. Teicoplanin and dalbavancin as well as oral therapy seem promising. Our work provides an extensive examination of the potential alternatives to E. faecalis IE useful for outpatient care. However, the insufficient evidence hampers the attempt to give a general recommendation.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

Evaluation of a Paradigm Shift From Intravenous Antibiotics to Oral Step-Down Therapy for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review

IMPORTANCE

The requirement of prolonged intravenous antibiotic courses to treat infective endocarditis (IE) is a time-honored dogma of medicine. However, numerous antibiotics are now available that achieve adequate levels in the blood after oral administration to kill bacteria. Moreover, prolonged intravenous antibiotic regimens are associated with high rates of adverse events. Accordingly, recent studies of oral step-down antibiotic treatment have stimulated a reevaluation of the need for intravenous-only therapy for IE.

OBSERVATIONS

PubMed was reviewed in October 2019, with an update in February 2020, to determine whether evidence supports the notion that oral step-down antibiotic therapy for IE is associated with inferior outcomes compared with intravenous-only therapy. The search identified 21 observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of oral antibiotics for treating IE, typically after an initial course of intravenous therapy; none found such oral step-down therapy to be inferior to intravenous-only therapy. Multiple studies described an improved clinical cure rate and an improved mortality rate among patients treated with oral step-down vs intravenous-only antibiotic therapy. Three randomized clinical trials also demonstrated that oral step-down antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as intravenous-only therapy in right-sided, left-sided, or prosthetic valve IE. In the largest trial, at 3.5 years of follow-up, patients randomized to receive oral step-down antibiotic therapy had a significantly improved cure rate and mortality rate compared with those who received intravenous-only therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review found ample data demonstrating the therapeutic effectiveness of oral step-down vs intravenous-only antibiotic therapy for IE, and no contrary data were identified. The use of highly orally bioavailable antibiotics as step-down therapy for IE, after clearing bacteremia and achieving clinical stability with intravenous regimens, should be incorporated into clinical practice.