Comparison of intravenous and oral definitive antibiotic regimens in hospitalised patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia from a urinary tract infection

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 This clinical approach, however, was based on low-quality data and outdated expert opinions.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.

Oral antibiotic step-down therapy for nonstaphylococcal gram-positive bloodstream infections

Bloodstream infections traditionally are treated with intravenous (IV) therapy. This study's purpose is to evaluate if oral step-down therapy is noninferior to IV therapy for gram-positive bloodstream infections (GP-BSIs). This retrospective cohort study included patients who received IV therapy and those who received oral step-down therapy for a nonstaphylococcal GP-BSI from 2017 to 2019. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality and clinical failure. A total of 308 patients were included (n = 94, oral; n = 214, IV). The oral step-down group had a lower incidence of 90-day clinical failure (9% vs 14%; P < 0.001). The IV group had a longer hospital stay (4 vs 6 days, P < 0.001); however, there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Bivariate analysis found no predictors of 90-day clinical failure. Oral step-down therapy was found to be noninferior to IV therapy.

The Drug-Specific Propensity Regarding the Acquisition of Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Escherichia coli: An in vitro Challenge and DNA Mutation Analysis

Objective

Many fluoroquinolones, such as ciprofloxacin, are used clinically. We investigated the relationship between resistance acquisition and exposure duration in each drug through the exposure of fluoroquinolone to Escherichia coli clinical isolates in vitro.

Methods

Eleven E. coli clinical isolates were exposed to each fluoroquinolone, ie, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, sitafloxacin, garenoxacin, and lascufloxacin, with the concentration of the mutant selection window for 5 days; these procedures were repeated 5-times. In addition, the DNA sequence in the quinolone-resistance determining region (QRDR) and the expression level in the drug efflux pump acrA were analyzed to determine the resistance mechanism.

Results

Although resistant strains were not detected after 5 to 10 days of exposure to fluoroquinolone, after 25 days of exposure to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin, 100% and 45% of isolates acquired resistance, respectively. Due to 25 days of exposure to sitafloxacin, garenoxacin, and lascufloxacin, MIC measurement was elevated 2- to 4096-fold for those of the parental strain, and the cross-resistance rate to levofloxacin was 72%, 54%, and 27%, respectively. In strains with high fluoroquinolone resistance, acrA overexpression was observed in addition to QRDR mutation.

Conclusion

In our findings, fluoroquinolone resistance was not observed in the E. coli strain after 5- to 10-days of exposure. However, resistance acquisition was detected frequently after 15- to 25-days of exposure. Among fluoroquinolones, lascufloxacn had the least impact on the resistance acquisition in E. coli.

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.

Comparison of Oral and Intravenous Definitive Antibiotic Therapy for Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus Species Bloodstream Infections from Soft Tissue Sources: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Beta-hemolytic streptococci are common causes of bloodstream infection (BSI). There is emerging data regarding oral antibiotics for BSI but limited for beta-hemolytic streptococcal BSI. We conducted a retrospective study of adults with beta-hemolytic streptococcal BSI from a primary skin/soft tissue source from 2015 to 2020. Patients transitioned to oral antibiotics within 7 days of treatment initiation were compared to those who continued intravenous therapy, after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was 30-day treatment failure (composite of mortality, infection relapse, and hospital readmission). A prespecified 10% noninferiority margin was used for the primary outcome. We identified 66 matched pairs of patients treated with oral and intravenous antibiotics as definitive therapy. Based on an absolute difference in 30-day treatment failure of 13.6% (95% confidence interval 2.4 to 24.8%), the noninferiority of oral therapy was not confirmed (P = 0.741); on the contrary, the superiority of intravenous antibiotics is suggested by this difference. Acute kidney injury occurred in two patients who received intravenous treatment and zero who received oral therapy. No patients experienced deep vein thrombosis or other vascular complications related to treatment. In patients treated for beta-hemolytic streptococcal BSI, those who transitioned to oral antibiotics by day 7 showed higher rates of 30-day treatment failure than propensity-matched patients. This difference may have been driven by underdosing of oral therapy. Further investigation into optimal antibiotic choice, route, and dosing for definitive therapy of BSI is needed.

Impact of specialty on the self-reported practice of using oral antibiotic therapy for definitive treatment of bloodstream infections

Background:

No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs), and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience.

Objective:

To assess practice patterns regarding oral antibiotic use for treatment of bacteremia in infectious diseases clinicians (IDCs, including physicians and pharmacists and trainees in these groups) and non–infectious diseases clinicians (NIDCs).

Design:

Open-access survey.

Participants:

Clinicians caring for hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.

Methods:

An open-access, web-based survey was distributed to clinicians at a Midwestern academic medical center using e-mail and to clinicians outside the medical center using social media. Respondents answered questions regarding confidence prescribing OAT for BSI in different scenarios. We used χ2 analysis for categorical data evaluated association between responses and demographic groups.

Results:

Of 282 survey responses, 82.6% of respondents were physicians, 17.4% pharmacists, and IDCs represented 69.2% of all respondents. IDCs were more likely to select routine use of OAT for BSI due to gram-negative anaerobes (84.6% vs 59.8%; P < .0001), Klebsiella spp (84.5% vs 69.0%; P < .009), Proteus spp (83.6% vs 71.3%; P < .027), and other Enterobacterales (79.5% vs 60.9%; P < .004). Our survey results revealed significant differences in selected treatment of Staphylococcus aureus syndromes. Fewer IDCs than NIDCs selected OAT to complete treatment for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) BSI due to gluteal abscess (11.9% vs 25.6%; P = .012) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) BSI due to septic arthritis (13.9% vs 20.9%; P = .219).

Conclusions:

Practice variation and discordance with evidence for the use of OAT for BSIs exists among IDCs versus NIDCs, highlighting opportunities for education in both clinician groups.

Intravenous to oral transition of antibiotics for gram-negative bloodstream infection at a University hospital in Thailand: Clinical outcomes and predictors of treatment failure

Background

Limited studies evaluate the outcome of intravenous antibiotics to oral transition in Gram-negative bloodstream infection (GN-BSI), particularly GN-BSI originating outside the urinary tract. This study aimed to evaluate treatment success in patients with GN-BSI treated with either intravenous therapy or intravenous to oral transition and to identify factors associated with treatment failure in those undergoing intravenous to oral transition.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thailand. Patients were included if they were ≥18 years of age, hospitalized in general medical wards with GN-BSI between August 1, 2015, to July 31, 2020, received intravenous antibiotic agents and had a functioning gastrointestinal tract.

Results

Of 955 patients, 545 (57.1%) were in the intravenous to oral transition group. The urinary tract was the most common source of infection (38.8%). Ciprofloxacin was the most prescribed oral antibiotic (53%). Treatment success occurred in 94.3% in the intravenous antibiotic to oral transition group. There was no significant difference in treatment success between the two groups (P = 0.790) with a concordant result after using propensity score matching (P = 0.223). Independent predictors of treatment failure in the intravenous to oral transition group included metastatic solid cancer (aOR = 4.355), HIV infection with CD₄ < 200 cells/mm³ (aOR = 8.452), qSOFA score ≥ 2 (aOR = 2.545), multidrug-resistant infection (aOR = 2.849), and respiratory tract infection (aOR = 8.447). Hospital length of stay in the intravenous to oral transition group was shorter than in the intravenous group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Intravenous to oral transition may be a practical approach in GN-BSI. Patients with Gram-negative bacteremia who have HIV infection with CD₄ < 200 cells/mm³, multidrug-resistant infections, and respiratory tract sources of infection may not be ideal candidates for this approach. Future research is needed from a randomized controlled trial.

The Changing Landscape of Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Narrative Review to Guide Inpatient Management

Gram-negative bacteremia secondary to focal infection such as skin and soft-tissue infection, pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or urinary tract infection is commonly encountered in hospital care. Current practice guidelines lack sufficient detail to inform evidence-based practices. Specifically, antimicrobial duration, criteria to transition from intravenous to oral step-down therapy, choice of oral antimicrobials, and reassessment of follow-up blood cultures are not addressed. The presence of bacteremia is often used as a justification for a prolonged course of antimicrobial therapy regardless of infection source or clinical response. Antimicrobials are lifesaving but not benign. Prolonged antimicrobial exposure is associated with adverse effects, increased rates of Clostridioides difficile infection, antimicrobial resistance, and longer hospital length of stay. Emerging evidence supports shorter overall duration of antimicrobial treatment and earlier transition to oral agents among patients with uncomplicated Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia who have achieved adequate source control and demonstrated clinical stability and improvement. After appropriate initial treatment with an intravenous antimicrobial, transition to highly bioavailable oral agents should be considered for total treatment duration of 7 days. Routine follow-up blood cultures are not cost-effective and may result in unnecessary healthcare resource utilization and inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Clinicians should incorporate these principles into the management of gram-negative bacteremia in the hospital.

Impact of Reappraisal of Fluoroquinolone Minimum Inhibitory Concentration Susceptibility Breakpoints in Gram-Negative Bloodstream Isolates

The Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute lowered the fluoroquinolone minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) susceptibility breakpoints for Enterobacteriaceae and glucose non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli in January 2019. This retrospective cohort study describes the impact of this reappraisal on ciprofloxacin susceptibility overall and in patients with risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. Gram-negative bloodstream isolates collected from hospitalized adults at Prisma Health-Midlands hospitals in South Carolina, USA, from January 2010 to December 2014 were included. Matched pairs mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to examine the change in ciprofloxacin susceptibility after MIC breakpoint reappraisal. Susceptibility of Enterobacteriaceae to ciprofloxacin declined by 5.2% (95% CI: −6.6, −3.8; p < 0.001) after reappraisal. The largest impact was demonstrated among Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream isolates (MD −7.8, 95% CI: −14.6, −1.1; p = 0.02) despite more conservative revision in ciprofloxacin MIC breakpoints. Among antimicrobial resistance risk factors, fluoroquinolone exposure within the previous 90 days was associated with the largest change in ciprofloxacin susceptibility (MD −9.3, 95% CI: −16.1, −2.6; p = 0.007). Reappraisal of fluoroquinolone MIC breakpoints has a variable impact on the susceptibility of bloodstream isolates by microbiology and patient population. Healthcare systems should be vigilant to systematically adopt this updated recommendation in order to optimize antimicrobial therapy in patients with bloodstream and other serious infections.

Oral Fluoroquinolone or Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs. ß-lactams as Step-Down Therapy for Enterobacteriaceae Bacteremia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Using published data, we sought to compare outcomes in patients transitioned to either oral fluoroquinolones (FQ) or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) versus ß-lactams (BL's) after an initial intravenous (IV) course for gram-negative rod (GNR) bacteremia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE and published IDWeek abstracts. We included studies that reported all-cause mortality and/or infection recurrence in patients transitioned to oral FQ/TMP-SMX and BL's.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective studies met inclusion criteria with data for 2,289 patients, of whom 65% were transitioned to oral FQ, 7.7% to TMP-SMX, and 27.2% to BL's. Follow up periods ranged from 21 to 90 days. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients transitioned to either FQ/TMP-SMX or BL's (OR 1.13; 95%CI, 0.69-1.87). Overall recurrence of infection, either bacteremia or the primary site, occurred more frequently in patients transitioned to oral BL's vs. FQ's (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.61). Analysis limited to recurrent bacteremia was similarly suggestive although limited by small numbers (OR 2.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.44). However, based on known pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, prescribed ß-lactam dosing regimens were frequently suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

In the step-down IV to oral treatment of GNR bacteremia, we found insufficient data regarding outcomes after oral TMP-SMX; however, selection of a FQ over commonly utilized ß-lactam regimens may reduce chances of infection recurrence. While this may be a class effect, it may simply be the result of inadequate dosing of ß-lactams. Additional investigations are warranted to determine outcomes with TMP-SMX and optimized oral ß-lactam dosing regimens.