Opinion-Based Recommendations: Beware the Tyranny of Experts

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.

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 Role of the Infectious Disease Consultation in Lyme Disease

A consultation regarding Lyme disease can be challenging for the infectious disease physician when the referral question centers on the use of prolonged or empirical antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease and associated tick-borne infections. Patients who have been infected with Borrelia burgdorferi, and many who have been misdiagnosed, are confronted with a seemingly endless array of misinformation that is not in keeping with the current understanding of the clinical spectrum of Lyme disease and its response to evidence-based treatment. Preparing for these conversations with a good grasp of the public beliefs regarding Lyme disease and its treatment can be beneficial.