Oral antibiotic treatment of right-sided staphylococcal endocarditis in injection drug users: prospective randomized comparison with parenteral therapy

Strategies to Improve Patient-Centered Care for Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 2/4

Drug use-associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE) is a major cause of illness and death for people with substance use disorder (SUD). Investigations to date have largely focused on advancing the care of patients with DUA-IE and included drug use disorder treatment, decisions about surgery, and choice of antibiotics during the period of hospitalization. Transitions from hospital to outpatient care are relatively unstudied and frequently a key factor of uncontrolled infection, continued substance use, and death. In this paper, we review the evidence supporting cross-disciplinary care for people with DUA-IE and highlight domains that need further clinician, institutional, and research investment in clinicians and institutions. We highlight best practices for treating people with DUA-IE, with a focus on addressing health disparities, meeting health-related social needs, and policy changes that can support care for people with DUA-IE in the hospital and when transitioning to the community.

Partial oral versus full intravenous antibiotic treatment of endocarditis in people who inject drugs: A systematic review

Background

Prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy may not be optimal for people who inject drugs (PWID) with infective endocarditis (IE) due to unique social and medical needs. The role of partial IV antibiotic therapy with continued oral (PO) antibiotic therapy is unclear.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Included studies compared PO to IV antibiotic treatment for IE in PWID.

Results

Four studies met eligibility. Observational studies included full IV treatment groups and partial IV, partial PO treatment groups for severe injection-related infections. PWID with IE comprised 41.0%-64.7% of the study populations but outcomes specific to IE were not separately reported. All-cause 90-day readmission rates were comparable between the IV treatment group (27.9%-31.5%) and partial IV, partial PO treatment group (24.8%-32.5%). Ninety-day mortality was non-significantly different between IV treatment (4.9%-10.7%) and partial IV, partial PO treatment groups (2.4%-13.0%). One small randomized clinical trial compared IV oxacillin or vancomycin with gentamicin to PO ciprofloxacin plus rifampin. The cure rates were 91% and 90%, respectively.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence comparing IV treatment to partial IV, partial PO antibiotic treatment in PWID with IE. Observational studies suggest that PO antibiotic therapy after initial IV treatment may be equivalent to full IV treatment alone within specific parameters, but randomized trials are needed to inform recommendations. Substantial clinical and social benefits for PWID and advantages for the health care system will result if PO treatment strategies with equal efficacy can be implemented.

Clinical implementation of partial oral treatment in infective endocarditis: the Danish POETry study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis (POET) trial, stabilized patients with left-sided infective endocarditis (IE) were randomized to oral step-down antibiotic therapy (PO) or conventional continued intravenous antibiotic treatment (IV), showing non-inferiority after 6 months. In this study, the first guideline-driven clinical implementation of the oral step-down POET regimen was examined.

METHODS

Patients with IE, caused by Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus spp. or coagulase-negative staphylococci diagnosed between May 2019 and December 2020 were possible candidates for initiation of oral step-down antibiotic therapy, at the discretion of the treating physician. The composite primary outcome in patients finalizing antibiotic treatment consisted of embolic events, unplanned cardiac surgery, relapse of bacteraemia and all-cause mortality within 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients [median age 74 years (IQR, interquartile range, 65-80), 70% males] with IE were possible candidates; PO was given to 240 (43%) patients and IV to 322 (57%) patients. More patients in the IV group had IE caused by S. aureus, or had an intra-cardiac abscess, or a pacemaker and more were surgically treated. The primary outcome occurred in 30 (13%) patients in the PO group and in 59 (18%) patients in the IV group (P = .051); in the PO group, 20 (8%) patients died vs. 46 (14%) patients in the IV group (P = .024). PO-treated patients had a shorter median length of stay [PO 24 days (IQR 17-36) vs. IV 43 days (IQR 32-51), P < .001].

CONCLUSIONS

After clinical implementation of the POET regimen almost half of the possible candidates with IE received oral step-down antibiotic therapy. Patients in the IV group had more serious risk factors for negative outcomes. At 6-month follow-up, there was a numerically but not statistically significant difference towards a lower incidence of the primary outcome, a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and a reduced length of stay in the PO group. Due to the observational design of the study, the lower mortality may to some extent reflect selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Clinical implementation of PO regimens seemed feasible and safe.

Oral Antibiotics for Bacteremia and Infective Endocarditis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Bacteremia and endocarditis are two clinical syndromes that, for decades, were managed exclusively with parenteral antimicrobials, irrespective of a given patient's clinical condition, causative pathogen, or its antibiotic susceptibility profile. This clinical approach, however, was based on low-quality data and outdated expert opinions. When a patient's condition has improved, gastrointestinal absorption is not compromised, and an oral antibiotic regimen reaching adequate serum concentrations is available, a switch to oral antibacterials can be applied. Although available evidence has reduced the timing of the oral switch in bacteremia to three days/until clinical improvement, there are only scarce data regarding less than 10-day intravenous antibiotic therapy in endocarditis. Many standard or studied oral antimicrobial dosages are smaller than the approved doses for parenteral administration, which is a risk factor for treatment failure; in addition, the gastrointestinal barrier may affect drug bioavailability, especially when the causative pathogen has a minimum inhibitory concentration that is close to the susceptibility breakpoint. A considerable number of patients infected by such near-breakpoint strains may not be potential candidates for oral step-down therapy to non-highly bioavailable antibiotics like beta-lactams; different breakpoints should be determined for this setting. This review will focus on summarizing findings about pathogen-specific tailoring of oral step-down therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis, but will also present laboratory and clinical data about antibiotics such as beta-lactams, linezolid, and fosfomycin that should be studied more in order to elucidate their role and optimal dosage in this context.

New Antimicrobials and New Therapy Strategies for Endocarditis: Weapons That Should Be Defended

The overall low-quality evidence concerning the clinical benefits of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE), which has made it difficult to strongly support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy, has led to a discrepancy between the available guidelines and clinical practice. In this complex scenario, very recently published guidelines have attempted to fill this gap. Indeed, in recent years several antimicrobials have entered the market, including ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, and the long-acting lipoglycopeptides dalbavancin and oritavancin. Despite being approved for different indications, real-world data on their use for the treatment of IE, alone or in combination, has accumulated over time. Furthermore, an old antibiotic, fosfomycin, has gained renewed interest for the treatment of complicated infections such as IE. In this narrative review, we focused on new antimicrobials and therapeutic strategies that we believe may provide important contributions to the advancement of Gram-positive IE treatment, providing a summary of the current in vitro, in vivo, and clinical evidence supporting their use in clinical practice.

Effectiveness of adjunctive rifampicin for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the addition of rifampicin to conventional treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) reduces bacteriological or clinical failure or death.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to 31 December 2022. Reference lists and PubMed citations of eligible studies were checked.

REVIEW METHODS

Two study authors independently identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult participants with SAB, in which an intervention group received adjunctive rifampicin and the control group received usual care with or without a placebo. Dichotomous data (bacteriological and clinical failure and deaths) were analysed and pooled across studies using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model. The key variable of interest being whether rifampicin was used.

RESULTS

Six RCTs including 894 participants-of which 758 (85%) were from one trial-met the inclusion criteria. The addition of rifampicin to conventional treatment of SAB significantly reduced bacteriological failure by 59% (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.81, I2 = 0%, number need to treat 27). However, it did not reduce clinical failure (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.47-1.03, I2 = 0%) or deaths (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, I2 = 0%). Further, it did not reduce the duration of bacteraemia, or the length of hospital stay. Adjunctive rifampicin reduced SAB recurrences (1% versus 4%, P = 0.01). Emergence of rifampicin resistance during treatment was uncommon (<1%).

CONCLUSION

Although adjunctive rifampicin reduced the risk of bacteriological failure and recurrences, we found no mortality benefit to support its use in SAB.

Real-World Application of Oral Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous (IV)-only vs oral transitional antimicrobial therapy for infective endocarditis (IE) after implementing a new expected practice within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS).

METHODS

We conducted a multicentered, retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible IE treated with IV-only vs oral therapy at the 3 acute care public hospitals in the LAC DHS system between December 2018 and June 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days, defined as being alive and without recurrence of bacteremia or treatment-emergent infectious complications.

RESULTS

We identified 257 patients with IE treated with IV-only (n = 211) or oral transitional (n = 46) therapy who met study inclusion criteria. Study arms were similar for many demographics; however, the IV cohort was older, had more aortic valve involvement, were hemodialysis patients, and had central venous catheters present. In contrast, the oral cohort had a higher percentage of IE caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical success at 90 days or last follow-up. There was no difference in recurrence of bacteremia or readmission rates. However, patients treated with oral therapy had significantly fewer adverse events. Multivariable regression adjustments did not find significant associations between any selected variables and clinical success across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate similar outcomes of real-world use of oral vs IV-only therapy for IE, in accord with prior randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Choosing patients over placebos: oral transitional therapy vs. IV-only therapy for bacteraemia and infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

The belief that antibiotics must be administered intravenously (IV) to treat bacteraemia and endocarditis has its origins 70 years ago and has engrained itself in the psyche of the medical community and the public at large. This has led to hesitancy in adopting evidence-based strategies utilizing oral transitional therapy for the treatment of these infections. We aim to reframe the narrative around this debate, focusing on patient safety over vestigial psychology.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review summarizes the current state of the literature regarding the use of oral transitional therapy for the treatment of bacteraemia and infective endocarditis, focusing on studies comparing it to the traditional, IV-only approach.

SOURCES

Relevant studies and abstracts from PubMed reviewed in April 2023.

CONTENT

Treating bacteraemia with oral transitional therapy has been studied in 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), totalling 625 patients, as well as numerous large, retrospective cohorts, including 3 published in the last 5 years alone, totalling 4763 patients. We identified 3 large, retrospective cohort studies; one quasi-experimental, pre-post study, and 3 RCTs of patients with endocarditis, totalling 748 patients in the retrospective cohorts and 815 patients in prospective, controlled studies. In all these studies, no worse outcomes were observed in the oral transitional therapy arm as compared with IV-only therapy. The main difference has consistently been longer durations of inpatient hospitalization and increased risk of catheter-related adverse events like venous thrombosis and line-associated blood stream infections in the IV-only groups.

IMPLICATIONS

There are ample data showing that choosing oral therapy reduces hospital stay and has fewer adverse events for patients than IV-only therapy, all with similar or better outcomes. In selected patients, choosing IV-only therapy may serve more as an anxiolytic "placebo" for the patient and provider rather than a necessity for treating the actual infection.

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.

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement

Importance

Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence.

Objective

To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength.

Evidence Review

This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches.

Findings

A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed.

Oral-only antibiotics for bone and joint infections in children: study protocol for a nationwide randomised open-label non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION

Children with bone and joint infections are traditionally treated with intravenous antibiotics for 3-10 days, followed by oral antibiotics. Oral-only treatment has not been tested in randomised trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Children (3 months to 18 years) will be randomised 1:1 with the experimental group receiving high-dose oral antibiotics and the control group receiving intravenous antibiotics with a shift in both groups to standard oral antibiotics after clinical and paraclinical improvement. Children in need of acute surgery or systemic features requiring intravenous therapy, including septic shock, are excluded. The primary outcome is defined as a normal blinded standardised clinical assessment 6 months after end of treatment. Secondary outcomes are non-acute treatment failure and recurrent infection. Outcomes will be compared by a non-inferiority assumption with an inferiority margin of 5%.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has the potential to reduce unnecessary hospitalisation and use of intravenous antibiotics in children with bone or joint infections. Due to the close follow-up, exclusion of severely ill children and predefined criteria for discontinuation of the allocated therapy, we expect the risk of treatment failure to be minimal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04563325.

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.

Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Infective Endocarditis: A Continuing Challenge

Today, Enterococcus faecalis is one of the main causes of infective endocarditis in the world, generally affecting an elderly and fragile population, with a high mortality rate. Enterococci are partially resistant to many commonly used antimicrobial agents such as penicillin and ampicillin, as well as high-level resistance to most cephalosporins and sometimes carbapenems, because of low-affinity penicillin-binding proteins, that lead to an unacceptable number of therapeutic failures with monotherapy. For many years, the synergistic combination of penicillins and aminoglycosides has been the cornerstone of treatment, but the emergence of strains with high resistance to aminoglycosides led to the search for new alternatives, like dual beta-lactam therapy. The development of multi-drug resistant strains of Enterococcus faecium is a matter of considerable concern due to its probable spread to E. faecalis and have necessitated the search of new guidelines with the combination of daptomycin, fosfomycin or tigecycline. Some of them have scarce clinical experience and others are still under investigation and will be analyzed in this review. In addition, the need for prolonged treatment (6–8 weeks) to avoid relapses has forced to the consideration of other viable options as outpatient parenteral strategies, long-acting administrations with the new lipoglycopeptides (dalbavancin or oritavancin), and sequential oral treatments, which will also be discussed.

Oral stepdown in Gram-positive bloodstream infections: A step in the right direction

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to Gram-positive organisms have traditionally been treated with prolonged courses of intravenous antimicrobials. However, this dogma is associated with substantial burden to the patient and health care system. Consequently, there is growing interest in the utilization of oral stepdown therapy, defined as the transition of intravenous therapy to an active oral agent, for this indication. This review highlights available literature examining oral stepdown in adult patients with BSI due to commonly encountered Gram-positive pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus spp. Support for oral stepdown in this setting is primarily derived from observational studies subject to selection bias. Nevertheless, this treatment strategy exhibits promising potential in carefully selected patients as it is consistently associated with reductions in hospital length of stay without jeopardizing clinical cure or survivability. Prospective, randomized trials are needed for validation of oral stepdown in Gram-positive BSI and to identify the optimal patient population and regimen.

Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for Infective Endocarditis-Model of Care

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious infectious disease with significant mortality and morbidity placing a burden on healthcare systems. Outpatient antimicrobial therapy in selected patients has been shown to be safe and beneficial to both patients and the healthcare system. In this article, we review the literature on the model of care for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy in infective endocarditis and propose that systems of care be developed based on local resources and all patients admitted with infective endocarditis be screened appropriately for outpatient antimicrobial therapy.

Association of Intravenous Drug Use and Length of Stay Following Infective Endocarditis

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) and associated infective endocarditis (IE) has been on the rise in the US since the beginning of the opioid epidemic. IVDU-IE has high morbidity and mortality, and treatment can be lengthy. We aim to quantify the association between IVDU and length of stay (LOS) in IE patients.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify IE patients, which was then stratified into IVDU-IE and non-IVDU-IE groups. Weighted values of hospitalizations were used to generate national estimates. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were applied to estimate the effects of IVDU on LOS.

RESULTS

We identified 1,114,257 adult IE patients, among which 123,409 (11.1%) were IVDU-IE. Compared to non-IVDU-IE patients, IVDU-IE patients were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and had an overall longer LOS (median [interquartile range]: 10 [5-20] versus 7 [4-13] d, P < 0.001), with a greater percentage of patients with a LOS longer than 30 d (13.7% versus 5.7%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple demographic and clinical factors, IVDU was independently associated with a 1.25-d increase in LOS (beta-coefficient = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.54, P < 0.001) and 35% higher odds of being hospitalized for more than 30 d (odds ratio = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.27-1.44, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among IE patients, being IVDU has associated with a longer LOS and a higher risk of prolonged hospital stay. Steps toward the prevention of IE in the IVDU population should be taken to avoid an undue burden on the healthcare system.

[Global and national trends in the evolution of infective endocarditis]

For the recent 20 years, substantial changes have occurred in all aspects of infectious endocarditis (IE), the evolution of risk factors, modernization of diagnostic methods, therapeutic and preventive approaches. The global trends are characterized by increased IE morbidity among people older than 65 who use intravenous psychoactive drugs. The epidemiological trend is represented by reduced roles of chronic rheumatic heart disease and congenital heart defects, increased proportion of IE associated with medical care, valve replacement, installation of intracardiac devices, and increased contribution of Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. to the IE etiology. Additional visualization methods (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with 18F-fludesoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET-CT), labeled white blood cell single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and modernization of the etiological diagnostic algorithm for determining the true pathogen (immunochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, sequencing) also become increasingly important. The COVID-19 pandemic has also adversely contributed to the IE epidemiology. New prospects of treatment have emerged, such as bacteriophages, lysins, oral antibacterial therapy, minimally invasive surgical strategies (percutaneous mechanical aspiration), endovascular mechanical embolectomy. The physicians' compliance with clinical guidelines (CG) is low, which contributes to the high rate of adverse outcomes of IE, while simple adherence to the CG together with more frequent use of surgical treatment doubles survival. Systematic adherence to CG, timely prevention and implementation of the Endocarditis Team into practice play the decisive role in a favorable prognosis of dynamically changing IE. This article presents the authors' own data that confirm the evolutionary trends of current IE.

Can the Future of ID Escape the Inertial Dogma of Its Past? The Exemplars of Shorter Is Better and Oral Is the New IV

Like all fields of medicine, Infectious Diseases is rife with dogma that underpins much clinical practice. In this study, we discuss 2 specific examples of historical practice that have been overturned recently by numerous prospective studies: traditional durations of antimicrobial therapy and the necessity of intravenous (IV)-only therapy for specific infectious syndromes. These dogmas are based on uncontrolled case series from >50 years ago, amplified by the opinions of eminent experts. In contrast, more than 120 modern, randomized controlled trials have established that shorter durations of therapy are equally effective for many infections. Furthermore, 21 concordant randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that oral antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as IV-only therapy for osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis. Nevertheless, practitioners in many clinical settings remain refractory to adopting these changes. It is time for Infectious Diseases to move beyond its history of eminent opinion-based medicine and truly into the era of evidenced-based medicine.

The resistance mechanisms of bacteria against ciprofloxacin and new approaches for enhancing the efficacy of this antibiotic

For around three decades, the fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotic ciprofloxacin has been used to treat a range of diseases, including chronic otorrhea, endocarditis, lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal, skin and soft tissue, and urinary tract infections. Ciprofloxacin's main mode of action is to stop DNA replication by blocking the A subunit of DNA gyrase and having an extra impact on the substances in cell walls. Available in intravenous and oral formulations, ciprofloxacin reaches therapeutic concentrations in the majority of tissues and bodily fluids with a low possibility for side effects. Despite the outstanding qualities of this antibiotic, Salmonella typhi, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa have all shown an increase in ciprofloxacin resistance over time. The rise of infections that are resistant to ciprofloxacin shows that new pharmacological synergisms and derivatives are required. To this end, ciprofloxacin may be more effective against the biofilm community of microorganisms and multi-drug resistant isolates when combined with a variety of antibacterial agents, such as antibiotics from various classes, nanoparticles, natural products, bacteriophages, and photodynamic therapy. This review focuses on the resistance mechanisms of bacteria against ciprofloxacin and new approaches for enhancing its efficacy.

Management of Infective Endocarditis in People Who Inject Drugs: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association has sponsored both guidelines and scientific statements that address the diagnosis, management, and prevention of infective endocarditis. As a result of the unprecedented and increasing incidence of infective endocarditis cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association sponsored this original scientific statement. It provides a more in-depth focus on the management of infective endocarditis among this unique population than what has been provided in prior American Heart Association infective endocarditis-related documents.

METHODS

A writing group was named and consisted of recognized experts in the fields of infectious diseases, cardiology, addiction medicine, and cardiovascular surgery in October 2021. A literature search was conducted in Embase on November 19, 2021, and multiple terms were used, with 1345 English-language articles identified after removal of duplicates.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of infective endocarditis in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique approach in all aspects of care. Clinicians must appreciate that it requires involvement of a variety of specialists and that consultation by addiction-trained clinicians is as important as that of more traditional members of the endocarditis team to improve infective endocarditis outcomes. Preventive measures are critical in people who inject drugs and are cured of an initial bout of infective endocarditis because they remain at extremely high risk for subsequent bouts of infective endocarditis, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

Dealing with the epidemic of endocarditis in people who inject drugs

North America is facing an opioid epidemic and growing illicit drug supply, contributing to growing numbers of injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE). Patients with IDU-IE have high early and late mortality. Patients with IDU-IE more commonly present with right-sided IE compared to those with non-IDU-IE and a majority are a result of S. aureus. While most patients can be successfully managed with intravenous antibiotic treatment, surgery is often required in part related to high relapse rates, potential treatment biases, and more aggressive pathophysiology in some. Multidisciplinary management as endocarditis teams, including not only cardiologists and cardiac surgeons but also infectious disease specialists, drug addiction experts, social workers, neurologists and/or neurosurgeons, is essential to best manage substance use disorder and facilitate safe discharge to home and society. Structural and population-level interventions, such as harm reduction programs, are necessary to reduce IDU-IE relapse rates in the community and other IDU-related health concerns such as overdoses. In this review, we describe the pathophysiological, clinical, surgical, social, and ethical characteristics of IDU-IE and the management thereof. We present the most recent clinical guidelines for this condition and discuss existing gaps in knowledge to guide future research, practice changes, and policy interventions.

Endocardite Infecciosa: Ainda mais Desafios que Certezas

Após catorze décadas de evolução médica e tecnológica, a endocardite infeciosa continua a desafiar médicos no seu diagnóstico e manejo diário. O aumento da incidência, alterações demográficas (afetando pacientes mais idosos), microbiologia com taxas de infeção por Staphylococcus mais elevadas, com complicações graves ainda frequentes e uma mortalidade substancial tornam a endocardite uma doença muito complexa. Apesar de tudo, a inovação no seu diagnóstico, nomeadamente na área da microbiologia e imagem, e a melhoria nos cuidados intensivos e na cirurgia cardíaca (quanto às técnicas, materiais usados e momento de intervenção) podem ter um impacto no seu prognóstico. Os desafios persistem, incluindo repensar a profilaxia, melhorar os critérios de diagnóstico incluindo a endocardite com culturas negativas e endocardite de prótese valvar, o timing para a intervenção cirúrgica, e sua realização ou não na presença de acidente vascular cerebral isquêmico e em usuários de drogas intravenosas. Uma estratégia combinada na endocardite infeciosa é fundamental, incluindo decisões e protocolos clínicos avançados, um manejo multidisciplinar, organização e políticas de saúde que culminem em melhores resultados para os nossos pacientes.

Oral Is the New IV. Challenging Decades of Blood and Bone Infection Dogma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full duration of treatment for 3 invasive bacterial infections: osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published, prospective, controlled trials that compared IV-only to oral stepdown regimens in the treatment of these diseases. Using the PubMed database, we identified 7 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteomyelitis, 9 of bacteremia, 1 including both osteomyelitis and bacteremia, and 3 of endocarditis, as well as one quasi-experimental endocarditis study. Study results were synthesized via forest plots and funnel charts (for risk of study bias), using RevMan 5.4.1 and Meta-Essentials freeware, respectively.

RESULTS

The 21 studies demonstrated either no difference in clinical efficacy, or superiority of oral versus IV-only antimicrobial therapy, including for mortality; in no study was IV-only treatment superior in efficacy. The frequency of catheter-related adverse events and duration of inpatient hospitalization were both greater in IV-only groups.

DISCUSSION

Numerous prospective, controlled investigations demonstrate that oral antibiotics are at least as effective, safer, and lead to shorter hospitalizations than IV-only therapy; no contrary data were identified. Treatment guidelines should be modified to indicate that oral therapy is appropriate for reasonably selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.

Infective Endocarditis: New Challenges in a Classic Disease

Infective endocarditis is a relatively rare, but deadly infection, with an overall mortality of around 20% in most series. Clinical manifestations have evolved in response to significant epidemiological shifts in industrialized nations, with a move toward a nosocomial or health-care-related pattern, in older patients, with more episodes associated with prostheses and/or intravascular electronic devices and a predominance of staphylococcal and enterococcal etiology.Diagnosis is often challenging and is based on the conjunction of clinical, microbiological, and imaging information, with notable progress in recent years in the accuracy of echocardiographic data, coupled with the recent emergence of other useful imaging techniques such as cardiac computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tools, particularly ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission/CT.The choice of an appropriate treatment for each specific case is complex, both in terms of the selection of the appropriate agent and doses and durations of therapy as well as the possibility of using combined bactericidal antibiotic regimens in the initial phase and finalizing treatment at home in patients with good evolution with outpatient oral or parenteral antimicrobial therapies programs. A relevant proportion of patients will also require valve surgery during the active phase of treatment, the timing of which is extremely difficult to define. For all the above, the management of infective endocarditis requires a close collaboration of multidisciplinary endocarditis teams.

Evaluation of step-down oral antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal bloodstream infections on clinical outcomes

Background:

Despite the severity and frequency of streptococcal bloodstream infections (BSIs), the effectiveness of oral definitive therapy remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of step-down oral antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated streptococcal BSIs.

Methods:

In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients admitted with uncomplicated streptococcal BSI between June 2015 and June 2017 were included. Patients were excluded if they received <48 h of antibiotic therapy; therapy was started >48 h after first positive culture; had complicated infections of endocarditis, bone and joint infections, or central nervous system infections; Pitt bacteremia score (PBS) ⩾ 4; or failed to respond to effective therapy necessitating continued intravenous (IV) therapy. Patients were grouped by receipt of step-down oral antibiotic therapy (PO group) versus continued IV therapy (IV group). Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day recurrence of BSI, 30-day readmission, 30-day all-cause mortality, and catheter-related or drug-related adverse events (AEs).

Results:

Of 244 patients included, 40% received step-down oral therapy (n = 98). Overall, the most common source of BSI was pneumonia (22%), followed by skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) (18%). Severity of illness measured by intensive care unit (ICU) admission and PBS was similar. The IV group had significantly longer LOS [median 10 (interquartile range [IQR] = 5–21) versus 5 (4–6) days, p < 0.01] compared with the PO group. BSI recurrence, readmission, all-cause mortality within 30 days, and AEs were similar between the groups (p = ns).

Conclusion:

In uncomplicated streptococcal BSI, patients treated with step-down oral antibiotic therapy had significantly shorter LOS compared with continued IV therapy without compromise of clinical outcomes.

Patients with serious injection drug use related infections who experience patient directed discharges on oral antibiotics have high rates of antibiotic adherence but require multidisciplinary outpatient support for retention in care

Background

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are frequently admitted for serious injection-related infections (SIRIs). Outcomes and adherence to oral antibiotics for PWID with patient-directed discharge (PDD) remain understudied.

Methods

We conducted a prospective multicenter bundled quality improvement project of PWID with SIRI at 3 hospitals in Missouri. All PWID with SIRI were offered multidisciplinary care while inpatient, including the option of addiction medicine consultation and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). All patients were offered oral antibiotics in the event of a PDD either at discharge or immediately after discharge through an infectious diseases telemedicine clinic. Additional support services included health coaches, a therapist, a case manager, free clinic follow-up, and medications in an outpatient bridge program. Patient demographics, comorbidities, 90-day readmissions, and substance use disorder clinic follow-up were compared between PWID with PDD on oral antibiotics and those who completed intravenous (IV) antibiotics using an as-treated approach.

Results

Of 166 PWID with SIRI, 61 completed IV antibiotics inpatient (37%), while 105 had a PDD on oral antibiotics (63%). There was no significant difference in 90-day readmission rates between groups (P = .819). For PWID with a PDD on oral antibiotics, 7.6% had documented nonadherence to antibiotics, 67% had documented adherence, and 23% were lost to follow-up. Factors protective against readmission included antibiotic and MOUD adherence, engagement with support team, and clinic follow-up.

Conclusions

PWID with SIRI who experience a PDD should be provided with oral antibiotics. Multidisciplinary outpatient support services are needed for PWID with PDD on oral antibiotics.

Infectious Complications of Injection Drug Use

The opioid overdose epidemic is one of the leading causes of death in adults. Its devastating effects have included not only a burgeoning overdose crisis but also multiple converging infectious diseases epidemics. The use of both opioids and other substances through intravenous (IV) administration places individuals at increased risks of infectious diseases ranging from invasive bacterial and fungal infections to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and viral hepatitis. In 2012, there were 530,000 opioid use disorder (OUD)-related hospitalizations in the United States (US), with $700 million in costs associated with OUD-related infections. The scale of the crisis has continued to increase since that time, with hospitalizations for injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE) increasing by as much as 12-fold from 2010 to 2015. Deaths from IDU-IE alone are estimated to result in over 7,260,000 years of potential life lost over the next 10 years. There have been high-profile injection-related HIV outbreaks, and injection drug use (IDU) is now the most common risk factor for hepatitis C virus (HCV). As this epidemic continues to grow, clinicians in all aspects of medical care are increasingly confronted with infectious complications of IDU. This review will describe the pathogenesis, clinical syndromes, epidemiology, and models of treatment for common infectious complications among persons who inject drugs (PWIDs).

Infected deep vein thrombophlebitis in people who inject drugs: missed opportunities and potential for alternative antimicrobial approaches

Infected deep vein thrombophlebitis (i-DVT) in people who inject drugs (PWID) is a clinically challenging but poorly characterised disease. We undertook a retrospective observational study of 70 PWID presenting acutely with i-DVT to improve the clinical and microbiological characterisation of this disease. i-DVT was frequently associated with bacteraemia (59.1% patients with blood cultures obtained), groin abscesses (in 34.3%; of which 54.2% required surgical drainage), and septic pulmonary emboli (38.6%) requiring anticoagulation. Network analysis identified a cluster of patients presenting with respiratory symptoms but lacking typical DVT symptoms, more likely to have septic pulmonary emboli. A microbiologic diagnosis was frequently achieved (70%). Causative pathogens were predominantly gram-positive (S. aureus and streptococci, especially anginosus group), whereas gram-negative pathogens were identified very infrequently (in 6.1% of microbiological diagnoses). This suggests routine empiric therapy against gram-negative bacteria, though commonly administered, is not required. High rates of clinical cure (88.6%) were observed despite the complex nature of infections and independently of the highly variable intravenous and total antimicrobial durations received. There exists a rationale to devise pragmatic approaches to implement novel individualised treatment plans utilising oral antimicrobial therapy for i-DVT. Despite frequent healthcare interactions, opportunities to address HCV treatment and opioid substitution therapy were frequently missed during these acute admissions.

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.

Long-term antibiotic therapy in patients with surgery-indicated not undergoing surgery infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

To date, there is little information regarding management of patients with infective endocarditis (IE) that did not undergo an indicated surgery. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate prognosis of these patients treated with a long-term antibiotic treatment strategy, including oral long term suppressive antibiotic treatment in five referral centres with a multidisciplinary endocarditis team.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter study retrieved individual patient-level data from five referral centres in Spain. Among a total of 1797, 32 consecutive patients with IE were examined (median age 72 years; 78% males) who had not undergone an indicated surgery, but received long-term antibiotic treatment (LTAT) and were followed by a multidisciplinary endocarditis team, between 2011 and 2019. Primary outcomes were infection relapse and mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 32 patients, 21 had IE associated with prostheses. Of the latter, 8 had an ascending aorta prosthetic graft. In 24 patients, a switch to long-term oral suppressive antibiotic treatment (LOSAT) was considered. The median duration of LOSAT was 277 days. Four patients experienced a relapse during follow-up. One patient died within 60 days, and 12 patients died between 60 days and 3 years. However, only 4 deaths were related to IE.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study results suggest that a LTAT strategy, including LOSAT, might be considered for patients with IE that cannot undergo an indicated surgery. After hospitalization, they should be followed by a multidisciplinary endocarditis team.

Applying the Infectious Diseases Literature to People who Inject Drugs

People who inject drugs (PWID) presenting with injection drug use-associated infections are an understudied population excluded from most prospective infectious disease (ID) clinical trials. Careful application of the existing ID literature to PWID must consider their unique medical, psychological, and social challenges. Identification and treatment of the underlying substance use disorder are key underpinnings to any successful ID intervention.

Oral vs Intravenous Antibiotics for Patients With Klebsiella pneumoniae Liver Abscess: A Randomized, Controlled Noninferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess (KLA) is emerging worldwide due to hypermucoviscous strains with a propensity for metastatic infection. Treatment includes drainage and prolonged intravenous antibiotics. We aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics were noninferior to continued intravenous antibiotics for KLA.

METHODS

This noninferiority, parallel group, randomized, clinical trial recruited hospitalized adults with liver abscess and K. pneumoniae isolated from blood or abscess fluid who had received ≤7 days of effective antibiotics at 3 sites in Singapore. Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral (ciprofloxacin) or intravenous (ceftriaxone) antibiotics for 28 days. If day 28 clinical response criteria were not met, further oral antibiotics were prescribed until clinical response was met. The primary endpoint was clinical cure assessed at week 12 and included a composite of absence of fever in the preceding week, C-reactive protein <20 mg/L, and reduction in abscess size. A noninferiority margin of 12% was used.

RESULTS

Between November 2013 and October 2017, 152 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; 25.7% women) were recruited, following a median 5 days of effective intravenous antibiotics. A total of 106 (69.7%) underwent abscess drainage; 71/74 (95.9%) randomized to oral antibiotics met the primary endpoint compared with 72/78 (92.3%) randomized to intravenous antibiotics (risk difference, 3.6%; 2-sided 95% confidence interval, -4.9% to 12.8%). Effects were consistent in the per-protocol population. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 12/72 (16.7%) in the oral group and 13/77 (16.9%) in the intravenous group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral antibiotics were noninferior to intravenous antibiotics for the early treatment of KLA.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT01723150.

Current Challenges in the Management of Infective Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis is a relatively rare, but deadly cause of sepsis, with an overall mortality ranging from 20 to 25% in most series. Although the classic clinical classification into syndromes of acute or subacute endocarditis have not completely lost their usefulness, current clinical forms have changed according to the profound epidemiological changes observed in developed countries. In this review, we aim to address the changing epidemiology of endocarditis, several recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of endocarditis and endocarditis-triggered sepsis, new useful diagnostic tools as well as current concepts in the medical and surgical management of this disease. Given its complexity, the management of infective endocarditis requires the close collaboration of multidisciplinary endocarditis teams that must decide on the diagnostic approach; the appropriate initial treatment in the critical phase; the detection of patients needing surgery and the timing of this intervention; and finally the accurate selection of patients for out-of-hospital treatment, either at home hospitalization or with oral antibiotic treatment.

Intravenous to oral switch in complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia without endovascular infection: a retrospective single-center cohort study

In this retrospective cohort study, selected patients with disseminated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, but without endovascular infection on echocardiography and ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT, were free of relapse after IV-oral switch. Mortality was low and similar to patients who received prolonged intravenous treatment. IV-oral switch was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay.

A narrative review of early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis: do we have an answer?

The most appropriate strategy and timing for surgery in infective endocarditis (IE) remains an argument of debate. Despite some authors promote the adoption of an early surgical approach (within 48 hours) to limit mortality and complications, no robust randomized trials are available on this argument and the evidence on this subject remain at the "expert opinion" level. Additionally, the different messages promulgated by the American and European guidelines contributed to fuel confusion regarding the relative priority of the surgical over medical therapy in IE. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines individuates three level of urgency: emergency surgery, to be performed within 24 hours; urgent surgery, recommended within a few days; elective surgery to be performed after 1-2 weeks of antibiotic therapy. Urgent surgery is recommended for most cases of IE. In the American Heart Association (AHA)'s guidelines define early surgery as "during the initial hospitalization and before completion of a full course of antibiotics." Some of the available evidences showed that are no proven benefits in delaying surgery if a definite diagnosis of IE has been established. However, this argument is controversial across the literature and several factors including the center specific experience can play a role in decision-making. In this review the latest evidences on IE clinical and surgical characteristics along with the current studies on the adoption of an early surgical approach are analyzed to clarify whether enough evidence is available to inform an update of the guidelines.

A narrative review of the interpretation of guidelines for the treatment of infective endocarditis

The recommendations of the current guidelines and the position papers of professional societies from the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons (ESC), the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society of Thoracic Surgeon (ACC/AHA/STS) and American Association of Thoracic Surgeon (AATS) regarding management of patients with valvular heart endocarditis were updated over the past decade. However, some of the recommendations appear to contradict one another. Given the changing paradigms on how the disease manifests, our aim was to review the respective guidelines and highlight these differences whilst drawing attention to the subsequent studies from which they were derived. In particular, concerns regarding antibiotic prophylaxis and therapy, imaging modality for diagnosis and follow-up, cerebrovascular sequalae and timing of surgery are appraised in detail. We also identified the novel techniques used such as transcatheter therapies and advances in imaging modalities used for diagnosis and treatment of this condition. The lack of randomised control trials (RCTs) does raise several issues regarding applicability of findings in day-to-day practice. Therefore, the focus of upcoming studies should be on clearly defined multicenter RCTs to provide more robust evidence for the management and treatment of infective endocarditis as future guidelines will be based on the outcomes of these trials.

Case report: isolated pulmonary valve endocarditis in a 39-year-old patient with intravenous drug abuse

Background 

Isolated pulmonary valve endocarditis is a very rare form of right-sided infective endocarditis. Due to the anatomy, in most cases, just the tricuspid valve is involved. Diagnosis can be challenging because of non-specific symptoms (fever, dyspnoea, haemoptysis, and pleuritic chest pain) and difficulty of detection by echocardiography. Risk factors include intravenous drug abuse, congenital heart disorders, alcohol abuse, male sex and central venous catheters, or pacemaker leads.

Case summary 

A 39-year-old homeless male patient, who was a current intravenous drug user, presented with fever, dyspnoea, and haemoptysis. The chest X-ray showed bilateral infiltrates. Empiric antibiotic treatment was initiated. Blood cultures showed the presence of Streptococcus dysgalactiae. Atypical causes of pneumonia were excluded. Systemic embolism was suspected, and a computed tomography scan of brain, thorax, and abdomen was performed. Multiple septic embolic lesions were detected in both lungs. Echocardiography revealed an isolated pulmonary valve endocarditis. Penicillin G and gentamycin were administered intravenously for a duration of 6 and 2 weeks, respectively. The patient was discharged in stable condition but did not return for outpatient clinical appointments.

Discussion 

To detect rare causes of right-sided infective endocarditis, repeated echocardiograms with special focus on the pulmonary valve may be required. Usually, antibiotic treatment alone leads to recovery. In special situations (heart failure, septic shock, or large vegetation size) surgery is required. Due to the high risk of postoperative complications, surgery in intravenous drug users should be avoided if possible.

The benefits and safety of oral sequential antibiotic therapy in non-complicated and complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Treatment optimization for serious infections, such as Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB), is a challenge for antimicrobial stewardship teams. Currently, SAB guidelines recommend a completely intravenous therapy (CIT).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to analyze the usefulness and safety of oral sequential therapy (OST) in SAB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational study in a tertiary teaching hospital in Spain. The inclusion criteria were complicated and non-complicated monomicrobial SAB and an adequate duration of therapy, with patients classified into OST or CIT. The primary endpoint was the 90-day recurrence of S. aureus infection. We also analyzed the mortality, the length of the hospital stay, and the duration of the intravenous antibiotic administration.

RESULTS

Of a total of 201 patients with SAB, 125 (62%) underwent OST. The most commonly administered oral antibiotic was trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (66% of patients). Of those administered OST, 43% had complicated bacteremia (most with an osteoarticular source of infection), and 6% had an intravascular device. The 90-day recurrence rate was 4%, with no differences between the two groups. The duration of the therapy (22 [16-28] vs. 13 days [8-17] for CIT and OST, respectively; p < 0.001) and the hospital stay (36 [27-71] vs. 18 days [13-29] for CIT and OST, respectively; p < 0.001) were shorter for OST. MRSA was related with mortality (OR 4.4, 95% CI [1.67-11.37]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

OST for properly selected patients with SAB could be a safe therapeutic option and can reduce their use of CIT and their hospital stay.

Outpatient Antimicrobial Therapy for Infective Endocarditis is Safe

Infective endocarditis (IE) is common and is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and health care burden. Outpatient antimicrobial therapy in carefully selected patients, supported by a multidisciplinary team is safe and beneficial for both the patient and the health care system. In this article, we review current literature of outpatient antimicrobial therapy in infective endocarditis and propose that most patients with IE should be considered and appropriate pathways developed to facilitate this.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND

Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4-6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection.

DESIGN

Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%.

SETTING

Twenty-six NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data.

RESULTS

Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was -1.38% (90% confidence interval -4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial.

LIMITATIONS

The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy.

FUTURE WORK

Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prevalence and predictors of aortic root abscess among patients with left-sided infective endocarditis: a cross-sectional comparative study

BACKGROUND

Aortic root abscess (ARA) is a major complication of infective endocarditis that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Limited data are present about patient characteristics and outcomes in this lethal disease. We aimed to study the clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with ARA compared to patients with left-sided infective endocarditis without ARA. We included patients with a definite diagnosis of left-sided infective endocarditis according to modified Duke's criteria. The patients were classified into two groups according to the presence of ARA (ARA and NO-ARA groups). All the patients were studied regarding their demographic data, clinical characteristics, laboratory and imaging data, and complications.

RESULTS

We included 285 patients with left-sided infective endocarditis. The incidence of ARA was 21.4% (61 patients). Underlying heart disease, mechanical prosthesis, bicuspid aortic valve, and prior IE were significantly higher in ARA. The level of CRP was higher in ARA (p = 0.03). ARA group showed more aortic valve vegetations (73.8% vs. 37.1%, p < 0.001), more aortic paravalvular leakage (26.7% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), and less mitral valve vegetations (21.3% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of ARA increased in the following conditions: aortic paravalvular leak (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.2-13, p = 0.03), mechanical prosthesis (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5-8.7, p = 0.005), aortic valve vegetations (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-8.0, p = 0.02), and undetected organism (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.6, p = 0.02), while the odds of ARA decreased with mitral valve vegetations (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.5, p = 0.001). We did not find a difference between both groups regarding the incidence of major complications, including in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

In our study, ARA occurred in one fifth of patients with left-sided IE. Patients with mechanical prosthesis, aortic paravalvular leakage, aortic vegetations, and undetected organisms had higher odds of ARA, while patients with mitral vegetations had lower odds of ARA.

Retrospective analysis of endocarditis patients to investigate the eligibility for oral antibiotic treatment in routine daily practice

Background

According to the current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, patients with left-sided infective endocarditis are treated with intravenous antibiotics for 4–6 weeks, leading to extensive hospital stay and high costs. Recently, the Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis (POET) trial suggested that partial oral treatment is effective and safe in selected patients. Here, we investigated if such patients are seen in our daily clinical practice.

Methods

We enrolled 119 adult patients diagnosed with left-sided infective endocarditis in a retrospective, observational study. We identified those that would be eligible for switching to partial oral antibiotic treatment as defined in the POET trial (e.g. stable clinical condition without signs of infection). Secondary objectives were to provide insight into the time until each patient was eligible for partial oral treatment, and to determine parameters of longer hospital stay and/or need for extended intravenous antibiotic treatment.

Results

Applying the POET selection criteria, the condition of 38 patients (32%) was stable enough to switch them to partial oral treatment, of which 18 (47.3%), 8 (21.1%), 9 (23.7%) and 3 patients (7.9%) were eligible for switching after 10, 14, 21 days or 28 days of intravenous treatment, respectively.

Conclusion

One-third of patients who presented with left-sided endocarditis in routine clinical practice were possible candidates for switching to partial oral treatment. This could have major implications for both the patient’s quality of life and healthcare costs. These results offer an interesting perspective for implementation of such a strategy, which should be accompanied by a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01490-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A review of current treatment strategies for infective endocarditis

INTRODUCTION

Infective endocarditis is one of the most difficult-to-treat infectious diseases.

AREAS COVERED

We restricted this review to the anti-infective treatment of the main bacteria responsible for infective endocarditis, i.e. staphylococci, streptococci, enterococci, and Gram-negative bacilli, including HACEK. Specific topics of major interest in treatment strategy are covered as well, including empirical treatment, oral switch, and treatment duration. We searched in the MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies, trials, reviews, or meta-analyses until May 2020.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of aminoglycosides for the treatment of endocarditis has been dramatically reduced over the last 20 years. It should be administered once daily, and no longer than 2 weeks. For staphylococcal endocarditis, recent data reinforced the role of anti-staphylococcal penicillins, for methicillin-susceptible isolates (alternative, cefazolin), and vancomycin for methicillin-resistant isolates (alternative, daptomycin). For staphylococcal prosthetic-valve endocarditis, these treatments will be reinforced by the addition of gentamicin during the first 2 weeks, and rifampin throughout the whole treatment duration, i.e. 6 weeks. The optimal duration of antibacterial treatment is 4 weeks for most native valve endocarditis, and 6 weeks for prosthetic-valve endocarditis. The oral switch is safe in patients stabilized after the initial intravenous course.

Significant Publications on Infectious Diseases Pharmacotherapy in 2019

PURPOSE

To provide a summary of the most prominent peer-reviewed infectious diseases (ID) pharmacotherapy and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-related articles published in 2019.

SUMMARY

Houston Infectious Diseases Network (HIDN) members were asked to nominate articles that they believed were most influential within the ID and HIV pharmacotherapy science communities. A total of 48 general ID and 6 HIV-related articles were nominated. Following nominations, an online survey was distributed via e-mail to Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) members, with a total of 156 and 54 members voting for general ID and HIV-related articles, respectively. The results of this survey were ranked to determine the top 10 general ID and top HIV articles. The top articles were then summarized by HIDN members, including residents, fellows, and clinical pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

This review covers many of the most influential ID articles published in 2019, including 3 practice guideline updates. Due to the high rate of ID literature published each year, this review continues to help summarize these articles for the ID community, allowing clinicians to remain up-to-date on practice-changing publications in ID and HIV pharmacotherapy.

Fluoroquinolones as an alternative treatment for Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess and impact on hospital length of stay

Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess (KPLA) is an endemic disease in East Asia. Patients with KPLA usually require prolonged intravenous (i.v.) β-lactam therapy and hospitalisation. Fluoroquinolones have high oral bioavailability and the potential to shorten the duration of i.v. therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of fluoroquinolones as an alternative treatment for KPLA in Taiwan. Consecutive patients with KPLA in a medical centre in Taiwan between July 2012 and August 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between cases treated with β-lactams and fluoroquinolones. A multivariate logistic regression model and propensity-score adjusted analysis were performed to identify independent risk factors for prolonged hospitalisation. A total of 234 patients with KPLA were identified during the study period. Most patients received β-lactams (n = 199; 85.0%), whilst only 35 (15.0%) received fluoroquinolones as the major therapy. Fluoroquinolones had similar clinical efficacy to β-lactams even in critically ill patients. Patients treated with fluoroquinolones had a shorter i.v. antibiotics duration (18.9 ± 7.6 days vs. 28.5 ± 14.7 days; P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (20.9 ± 8.3 days vs. 29.5 ± 16.2 days; P < 0.001) than patients treated with β-lactams. Major therapy with fluoroquinolones was an independent protective factor for hospital LOS > 14 days in all patients and for hospital LOS > 21 days in critically ill patients. In conclusion, fluoroquinolones were an effective alternative treatment for KPLA that resulted in a shorter duration of i.v. therapy and hospital LOS.

Oral switch versus standard intravenous antibiotic therapy in left-sided endocarditis due to susceptible staphylococci, streptococci or enterococci (RODEO): a protocol for two open-label randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Left-sided infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious infection with a heavy burden for patients and healthcare system. Oral switch after initial intravenous antibiotic therapy may reduce costs and improve patients' discomfort without increasing unfavourable outcomes. We describe the methodology of two simultaneously conducted open-label randomised trials aiming to assess non-inferiority of oral switch as compared with entirely intravenous antibiotic therapy for the treatment of left-sided IE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two simultaneous multicentre open-label prospective randomised trials assessing non-inferiority of oral switch during antibiotic treatment as compared with entirely intravenous therapy in patients with left-sided IE are ongoing. One trial is dedicated to left-sided IE caused by multisusceptible staphylococci (Relais Oral Dans le traitement des Endocardites à staphylocoques ou streptOcoques (RODEO)-1) and the other is dedicated to left-sided IE caused by susceptible streptococci or enterococci (RODEO-2). It is planned to randomise 324 patients in each trial after an initial course of at least 10 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy either to continue intravenous antibiotic therapy or to switch to oral antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome is treatment failure within 3 months after the end of antibiotic treatment, a composite outcome defined by all-cause death and/or symptomatic embolic events and/or unplanned valvular surgery and/or microbiological relapse (with the primary pathogen). Secondary outcomes include patient quality of life, echocardiographic outcome, costs and efficiency associated with IE care. Statistical analysis will be performed with a non-inferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided 2.5% type I error.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. This study was approved by Tours Research ethics committee (CPP TOURS-Region Centre-Ouest 1, 2015-R26, 23 February 2016). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through presentation at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT Number: 2015-002371-16 and NCT02701608; NCT02701595.

Early Oral Antibiotic Switch for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a complicated, high-risk disease. For selected low-risk SAB, the role of oral antibiotic stepdown therapy is unknown. Bupha-Intr et al. report a retrospective cohort of low-risk SAB patients who did well with a short duration of intravenous antibiotics, followed by an additional ∼10 days of oral antibiotics, primarily using beta-lactams. Prospective trials will help further define the efficacy of this approach.

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.