Oral step-down therapy in patients with uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus primary bacteremia and catheter-related bloodstream infections

Efficacy and safety of an early oral switch in low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (SABATO): an international, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection is treated with at least 14 days of intravenous antimicrobials. We assessed the efficacy and safety of an early switch to oral therapy in patients at low risk for complications related to S aureus bloodstream infection.

METHODS

In this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial done in 31 tertiary care hospitals in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, adult patients with low-risk S aureus bloodstream infection were randomly assigned after 5-7 days of intravenous antimicrobial therapy to oral antimicrobial therapy or to continue intravenous standard therapy. Randomisation was done via a central web-based system, using permuted blocks of varying length, and stratified by study centre. The main exclusion criteria were signs and symptoms of complicated S aureus bloodstream infection, non-removable foreign devices, and severe comorbidity. The composite primary endpoint was the occurrence of any complication related to S aureus bloodstream infection (relapsing S aureus bloodstream infection, deep-seated infection, and mortality attributable to infection) within 90 days, assessed in the intention-to-treat population by clinical assessors who were masked to treatment assignment. Adverse events were assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication (safety population). Due to slow recruitment, the scientific advisory committee decided on Jan 15, 2018, to stop the trial after 215 participants were randomly assigned (planned sample size was 430 participants) and to convert the planned interim analysis into the final analysis. The decision was taken without knowledge of outcome data, at a time when 126 participants were enrolled. The new sample size accommodated a non-inferiority margin of 10%; to claim non-inferiority, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference (stratified by centre) had to be below 10 percentage points. The trial is closed to recruitment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01792804), the German Clinical trials register (DRKS00004741), and EudraCT (2013-000577-77).

FINDINGS

Of 5063 patients with S aureus bloodstream infection assessed for eligibility, 213 were randomly assigned to switch to oral therapy (n=108) or to continue intravenous therapy (n=105). Mean age was 63·5 (SD 17·2) years and 148 (69%) participants were male and 65 (31%) were female. In the oral switch group, 14 (13%) participants met the primary endpoint versus 13 (12%) in the intravenous group, with a treatment difference of 0·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·8 to 9·1; p=0·013). In the oral switch group, 36 (34%) of 107 participants in the safety population had at least one serious adverse event compared with 27 (26%) of 103 participants in the intravenous group (p=0·29).

INTERPRETATION

Oral switch antimicrobial therapy was non-inferior to intravenous standard therapy in participants with low-risk S aureus bloodstream infection. However, it is necessary to carefully assess patients for signs and symptoms of complicated S aureus bloodstream infection at the time of presentation and thereafter before considering early oral switch therapy.

FUNDING

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

TRANSLATIONS

For the German, Spanish, French and Dutch translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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.