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

Risk Factors Associated with Poor Outcome in Patients with Infective Endocarditis: An Italian Single-Center Experience

Background: Nowadays, infective endocarditis (IE) is still burdened by a high mortality. In the absence of an adequate prognostic stratification system, it is important to assess new predictors of poor outcomes. The aim of our study is to evaluate which factors were associated with higher mortality in IE patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study enrolled patients with an IE diagnosis at the Infectious Diseases Clinic of the University ‘G. D’Annunzio’, Chieti, Italy from January 2013 to December 2019. For each patient, demographic, anamnestic and clinical information, embolic phenomena, laboratory and microbiologic data, treatment, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. A correlation analysis was performed. Results: Sixty-eight patients with EI were studied; among them, the mortality was 17.6%, 20.6%, and 23.5%, intra-hospital, at 1 month from discharge and at 6 months from discharge, respectively. Mortality was significantly correlated with age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and procalcitonin values when considering either basal values (r = 0.266, p = 0.029), or values at 48−72 h from the start of an antibiotic therapy (r = 0.222; p < 0.05), cerebral embolization for 6-month mortality (r = 0.284; p = 0.019), and inadequate antibiotic therapy (r = 0.232, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Procalcitonin values, at EI diagnosis and at 48−72 h after starting antibiotics, are prognostic factors useful for stratifying patient risk, and for setting up a personalized treatment. Of note, cerebral embolization and an inappropriate empirical treatment were associated with a higher mortality in the short- and long-term.

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.

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.

Potential savings through single-dose intravenous Dalbavancin in long-term MRSA infection treatment - a health economic analysis using German DRG data

Complicated infections such as osteomyelitis, skin and soft tissue infections or endocarditis often require antibiotic therapies that can last up to several weeks. The prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) leads to a dramatic increase in costs. Single-dose intravenous Dalbavancin is a novel antimicrobial agent for the treatment of acute bacterial skin, skin structure and soft tissue infections (ABSSSI) that allows an earlier discharge of patients, resulting in potential savings. Joint, bone and prostheses infections (JBPI) are also related with long LOS. The aim of this study is to determine the economic effects of single-dose intravenous Dalbavancin in suitable patients with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in Germany. For this purpose, an analysis with real-world patient treatment data was performed, which was subsequently validated in a large German hospital. In total, ABSSSI patients with MRSA infections could stay 6.45 days shorter and 2,865 € could be saved while JBPI patients could be discharged eventually 10.6 days earlier and 3,909 € could be saved. Single-dose intravenous Dalbavancin is thus an option for patients with ABSSSI and JBPI who are eligible for discharge.

Short- and long-term outcomes in infective endocarditis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Despite advances in medical knowledge, technology and antimicrobial therapy, infective endocarditis (IE) is still associated with devastating outcomes. No reviews have yet assessed the outcomes of IE patients undergoing short- and long-term outcome evaluation, such as all-cause mortality and IE-related complications. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the short- and long-term mortality, as well as IE-related complications in patients with definite IE.

Methods

A computerized systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar from 2000 to August, 2016. Included studies were published studies in English that assessed short-and long-term mortality for adult IE patients. Pooled estimations with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with DerSimonian-Laird (DL) random-effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. Publication bias was evaluated using inspection of funnel plots and statistical tests.

Results

Twenty five observational studies (retrospective, 14; prospective, 11) including 22,382 patients were identified. The overall pooled mortality estimates for IE patients who underwent short- and long-term follow-up were 20% (95% CI: 18.0–23.0, P < 0.01) and 37% (95% CI: 27.0–48.0, P < 0.01), respectively. The pooled prevalence of cardiac complications in patients with IE was found to be 39% (95%CI: 32.0–46.0) while septic embolism and renal complications accounted for 25% (95% CI: 20.0–31) and 19% (95% CI: 14.0–25.0) (all P < 0.01), respectively.

Conclusion

Irrespective of the follow-up period, a significantly higher mortality rate was reported in IE patients, and the burden of IE-related complications were immense. Further research is needed to assess the determinants of overall mortality in IE patients, as well as well-designed observational studies to conform our results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-017-0729-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Infective Endocarditis: How Do We Currently Interpret the Duke Minor Criterion "Predisposing Heart Condition" in Native Valves?

INTRODUCTION

The term "predisposing heart condition" is used as an indication of antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) and as a criterion for diagnosing IE according to modified Duke criteria. The purpose of this survey was to elaborate clinician's knowledge and opinion on relevant heart conditions as a Duke minor criterion for the diagnosis of IE.

METHODS

A questionnaire was created that consisted of two knowledge and two opinion questions on the term predisposing heart condition. The survey included results from 318 questionnaires with responses from specialists in the field of internal medicine, infectious diseases, and cardiology.

RESULTS

The answers of what participants believed to be currently a Duke minor criterion and what they thought should be minor criterion were very distributed with a median accordance of 33%.

CONCLUSION

The survey indicates that there is significant uncertainty regarding what is encountered as a Duke minor criterion predisposing heart condition in a native valve.