Treatment of bacterial endocarditis

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.

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.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBSERVATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Busting the Myth of "Static vs Cidal": A Systemic Literature Review

We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a systematic literature review of published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a bacteriostatic agent to a bactericidal agent in the treatment of clinical, bacterial infections. Of 56 identified trials published since 1985, 49 found no significant difference in efficacy between bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents. In 6 trials it was found that the bacteriostatic agent was superior to the bactericidal agent in efficacy. Only 1 trial found that the bactericidal agent was superior; in that case, the inferiority of the static agent was explainable by underdosing of the drug based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. Thus, virtually all available data from high-quality, RCTs demonstrate no intrinsic superiority of bactericidal compared to bacteriostatic agents. Other drug characteristics such as optimal dosing, pharmacokinetics, and tissue penetration may be more important efficacy drivers.

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent ampicillin therapy of experimental endocarditis caused by aminoglycoside-resistant enterococci

We studied the efficacy of continuous intravenous infusion of ampicillin compared with that of intermittent administration of ampicillin alone or in combination with gentamicin for the therapy of highly aminoglycoside-resistant enterococcal experimental endocarditis. Rabbits were infected with a gentamicin-susceptible (MIC, 256 micrograms/ml) strain of Enterococcus faecalis or a strain of E. faecalis which was highly resistant to gentamicin in vitro (MIC, greater than 2,000 micrograms/ml). Administration of ampicillin by continuous intravenous infusion did not significantly enhance the killing of enterococci in vivo compared with that by intermittent administration of ampicillin for either the aminoglycoside-susceptible or the aminoglycoside-resistant strain. In combination with gentamicin, there were no significant differences in efficacies obtained with intermittent versus continuous intravenous infusion of ampicillin therapy for experimental endocarditis caused by either strain of E. faecalis.

Development of resistance during antibiotic therapy

The frequency of development of resistance during antibiotic therapy was evaluated by reviewing the literature according to prescribed criteria. Mean resistance rates were calculated to be 9.2% for broad spectrum penicillins, 8.6% for second and third generation cephalosporins, 10.0% for latamoxef, 4.7% for imipenem, 11.8% for ciprofloxacin and 13.4% for aminoglycosides. Emergence of resistance of the infecting organism was associated with therapeutic failure in about half of the cases with the exception of patients treated with aminoglycosides in whom development of resistance resulted in treatment failure in 85% of the cases. The possible benefit of combination therapy in terms of resistance development is discussed.

Continuous-infusion ampicillin therapy of enterococcal endocarditis in rats

Intermittent administration of ampicillin alone has resulted in high failure rates in previously described animal models of enterococcal endocarditis. We developed a rat model of enterococcal endocarditis which permits comparison of continuous intravenous infusion of ampicillin with intramuscular therapy. Continuous low-dose ampicillin infusion (450 mg/kg [body weight] per day) was compared with the same dose given intramuscularly in three divided doses and with high-dose infusion (4.5 g/kg per day) of the drug. For the infecting strain of Streptococcus faecalis, the MIC and MBC were 1 microgram/ml. Mean ampicillin levels in serum were 53.9 +/- 4.8 (peak) and less than 1 (trough), 8.7 +/- 1.4, and 244 +/- 29 micrograms/ml for intramuscular, low-dose, and high-dose regimens, respectively. Ampicillin infusion therapy significantly increased the survival rate and sterilization of blood cultures. Continuous infusions were superior to intermittent therapy in eradicating bacteremia. After 5 days of treatment, low-dose ampicillin infusion was more effective than intermittent therapy in sterilizing cardiac vegetations (P less than 0.01). Continuous-infusion therapy at either dose was significantly more effective than intramuscular injection in reducing bacterial titers in cardiac vegetations (5.4 +/- 1.0 log10 CFU/g [low dose], 4.8 +/- 0.3 log10 CFU/g [high dose], and 7.7 +/- 0.3 log10 CFU/g [intramuscular]). However, no statistically significant advantage was found for high-dose compared with low-dose ampicillin infusion in lowering bacterial titers in vegetations (P greater than 0.3).

Serum bactericidal titer as a predictor of outcome in endocarditis

A study was conducted in 89 rabbits with experimental aortic valve endocarditis caused by three different strains of Staphylococcus aureus to determine whether there was a correlation between the peak serum bactericidal titer of the four drugs tested and the vegetation titer. After four days of therapy both the rabbits with and those without sterile vegetations had median peak bactericidal titers of 1 : 8. The mean vegetation titers did not correlate with the mean bactericidal titers. The serum bactericidal test does not measure the relative rate of killing of the bacteria by the drugs. Although the test remains clinically useful for documentation of bactericidal activity, the minimum level of activity necessary for the test to serve as a predictor of outcome remains to be defined.

Effect of antibiotics on the prevention of experimental Bacteroides fragilis endocarditis

The relative efficacy of single doses of antibiotics in modifying the development of Bacteroides fragilis subsp. fragilis endocarditis was studied in an experimental model. Antibiotics were administered 0.5 h before intravenous injection of B. fragilis subsp. fragilis into rabbits prepared by insertion of a polyethylene catheter into the left side of the heart; 48 h later, intracardiac vegetations were excised and cultured anaerobically. B. fragilis was recovered from 92% of untreated animals. After a single dose of procaine penicillin G (250 mg/kg intramuscularly), 80% of the animals remained infected. Chloramphenicol (30 mg/kg), carbenicillin (50 mg/kg), and metronidazole (10 mg/kg) were also ineffective (76, 80, and 75% infected, respectively). Cefamandole (30 mg/kg), cefoxitin (30 mg/kg), and erythromycin (30 mg/kg) were significantly more active (50, 55, and 45% infected, respectively), as were higher doses of carbenicillin. Clindamycin (50 mg/kg) was the most effective regimen (11% infected). At present, the relevance of these results to the therapy of serious B. fragilis infections is not known, but this model may prove useful in the evaluation of the prevention of B. fragilis subsp. fragilis bacteremia.