Practice Patterns of Infectious Diseases Physicians in Transitioning From Intravenous to Oral Therapy in Patients With Bacteremia

Dalbavancin as consolidation antibiotic treatment in infective endocarditis, cardiac implantable electronic devices infection and bacteremia: Clinical experience of 7 years

INTRODUCTION

Dalbavancin (DBV), a novel lipoglycopeptide with activity against Gram-positive bacterial infections, is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). It has linear dose-related pharmacokinetics allowing a prolonged interval between doses. It would be a good option for the treatment of patients with Gram-positive cardiovascular infections.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with cardiovascular infection (infective endocarditis, bacteremia, implantable electronic device infection) treated with DBV at Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid) for 7 years (2016-2022). Patients were divided in two study groups: 1) Infective endocarditis (IE), 2) Bacteremia. Epidemiological, clinical, microbiological and therapeutic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were treated with DBV for cardiovascular infection. IE was the most common indication (68%), followed by bacteremia (32%) with male predominance in both groups (64% vs 62%) and median age of 67,7 and 57,5 years, respectively. 100% of blood cultures were positive to Gram-positive microorganisms (Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp. or Enterococcus spp.) in both study groups. Previously to DBV, all patients received other antibiotic therapy, both in the group of IE (median: 80 days) as in bacteremia (14,8 days). The main reason for the administration of DBV was to continue intravenous antimicrobial therapy outside the hospital in both the EI group (n = 15) and the bacteremia group (n = 8). DBV was used as consolidation therapy in a once- or twice-weekly regimen. Microbiological and clinical successes were reached in 84% of cases (n = 21), 76,4% in IE group and 100% in bacteremia group. No patient documented adverse effects during long-term dalbavancin treatment.

CONCLUSION

DBV is an effective and safety treatment as consolidation antibiotic therapy in IE and bacteremia produced by Gram-positive microorganisms.

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.

Real-World Effectiveness of Intravenous and Oral Antibiotic Stepdown Strategies for Gram-Negative Complicated Urinary Tract Infection With Bacteremia

Background

Robust data are lacking regarding the optimal route, duration, and antibiotic choice for gram-negative bloodstream infection from a complicated urinary tract infection source (GN-BSI/cUTI).

Methods

In this multicenter observational cohort study, we simulated a 4-arm registry trial using a causal inference method to compare effectiveness of the following regimens for GN-BSI/cUTI: complete course of an intravenous β-lactam (IVBL) or oral stepdown therapy within 7 days using fluoroquinolones (FQs), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), or high-bioavailability β-lactams (HBBLs). Adults treated between January 2016 and December 2022 for Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species GN-BSI/cUTI were included. Propensity weighting was used to balance characteristics between groups. The 60-day recurrence was compared using a multinomial Cox proportional hazards model with probability of treatment weighting.

Results

Of 2571 patients screened, 759 (30%) were included. Characteristics were similar between groups. Compared with IVBLs, we did not observe a difference in effectiveness for FQs (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% confidence interval, .49-2.43]) or TMP-SMX (1.44 [.54-3.87]), and the effectiveness of TMP-SMX/FQ appeared to be optimal at durations of >10 days. HBBLs were associated with nearly 4-fold higher risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.76-8.33]), which was not mitigated by longer treatment durations. Most HBBLs (67%) were not optimally dosed for bacteremia. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

These real-world data suggest that oral stepdown therapy with FQs or TMP-SMX have similar effectiveness as IVBLs. HBBLs were associated with higher recurrence rates, but dosing was suboptimal. Further data are needed to define optimal dosing and duration to mitigate treatment failures.

Oral β-Lactams, Fluoroquinolones, or Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole for Definitive Treatment of Uncomplicated Escherichia coli or Klebsiella Species Bacteremia From a Urinary Tract Source

Background

Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are effective for oral step-down therapy for gram-negative bloodstream infections but are associated with unfavorable toxic effects. Robust data are lacking for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and high-bioavailability β-lactams (HBBLs).

Methods

In this multicenter observational cohort study, we simulated a 3-arm registry trial using causal inference methods to compare the effectiveness of FQs, TMP-SMX, or HBBLs for gram-negative bloodstream infections oral step-down therapy. The study included adults treated between January 2016 and December 2022 for uncomplicated Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species bacteremia of urinary tract origin who were who were transitioned to an oral regimen after ≤4 days of effective intravenous antibiotics. Propensity weighting was used to balance characteristics between groups. 60-day recurrence was compared using a multinomial Cox proportional hazards model with probability of treatment weighting.

Results

Of 2571 patients screened, 648 (25%) were included. Their median age (interquartile range) was 67 (45-78) years, and only 103 (16%) were male. Characteristics were well balanced between groups. Compared with FQs, TMP-SMX had similar effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% confidence interval, .30-2.78]), and HBBLs had a higher risk of recurrence (2.19 [.95-5.01]), although this difference was not statistically significant. Most HBBLs (70%) were not optimally dosed for bacteremia. A total antibiotic duration ≤8 days was associated with a higher recurrence rate in select patients with risk factors for failure.

Conclusions

FQs and TMP-SMX had similar effectiveness in this real-world data set. HBBLs were associated with higher recurrence rates but suboptimal dosing may have contributed. Further studies are needed to define optimal BL dosing and duration to mitigate treatment failures.

Personalising intravenous to oral antibiotic switch decision making through fair interpretable machine learning

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and healthcare associated infections pose a significant threat globally. One key prevention strategy is to follow antimicrobial stewardship practices, in particular, to maximise targeted oral therapy and reduce the use of indwelling vascular devices for intravenous (IV) administration. Appreciating when an individual patient can switch from IV to oral antibiotic treatment is often non-trivial and not standardised. To tackle this problem we created a machine learning model to predict when a patient could switch based on routinely collected clinical parameters. 10,362 unique intensive care unit stays were extracted and two informative feature sets identified. Our best model achieved a mean AUROC of 0.80 (SD 0.01) on the hold-out set while not being biased to individuals protected characteristics. Interpretability methodologies were employed to create clinically useful visual explanations. In summary, our model provides individualised, fair, and interpretable predictions for when a patient could switch from IV-to-oral antibiotic treatment. Prospectively evaluation of safety and efficacy is needed before such technology can be applied clinically.

Early Switch From Intravenous to Oral Antibiotics for Patients With Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bacteremia

Importance

Gram-negative bacteremia is a global health concern, and optimizing the transition from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics is a critical step in improving patient treatment and resource utilization.

Objective

To assess the association of switching to oral antibiotics within 4 days after initial blood culture with 90-day all-cause mortality compared with prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study conducted using the target trial emulation framework included observational data from adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia in 4 hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark, from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2021. The duration of follow-up was 90 days. Eligibility criteria included a blood culture positive for growth of gram-negative bacteria, clinical stability within 4 days of initial blood culture, an available susceptibility report on day 4, and initiation of appropriate empirical IV antibiotic treatment within 24 hours of blood culture.

Exposure

Switching to oral antibiotics within 4 days after initial blood culture compared with continuing IV antibiotic treatment for at least 5 days after initial blood culture.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to adjust for confounding. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed using pooled logistic regression to estimate absolute risk, risk difference (RD), and risk ratio (RR); 95% CIs were computed using bootstrapping.

Results

A total of 914 individuals were included in the target trial emulation analysis (512 [56.0%] male; median age, 74.5 years [IQR, 63.3-83.2 years]); 433 (47.4%) transitioned early to oral antibiotic treatment, and 481 (52.6%) received prolonged IV treatment. Ninety-nine individuals (10.8%) died during follow-up. The proportion of individuals who died was higher in the group receiving prolonged IV treatment (69 [14.3%] vs 30 [6.9%]). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 90-day all-cause mortality risk was 9.1% (95% CI, 6.7%-11.6%) for the early-switch group and 11.7% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.8%) for the group receiving prolonged IV treatment; the RD was -2.5% (95% CI, -5.7% to 0.7%) and RR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60-1.10). In the per-protocol analysis, the RD was -0.1% (95% CI, -3.4% to 3.1%) and RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.70-1.40).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia, early transition to oral antibiotics within 4 days of initial blood culture was associated with 90-day all-cause mortality risk comparable to that of continuing IV antibiotic treatment and may be an effective alternative to prolonged IV treatment.

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.

Using antibiotics wisely

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will describe role of shorter antibiotic therapies, early switch from intravenous to oral therapy, and artificial intelligence in infectious diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is evidence that shorter courses of antibiotics are noninferior to standard durations of therapy. This has been demonstrated with Enterobacterales bacteremia that can be treated with 7 days of therapy, community acquired pneumonia with 3 days and ventilator associated pneumonia with just 7 days of antibiotic therapy. The conversion from intravenous to oral therapy in treating bacteremia, endocarditis and bone and joint infections is safe and effective and reduces line complications and costs. Also, for clean surgical procedures only one dose of antibiotic is needed, but it should be the most effective antibiotic which is cefazolin. This means avoiding clindamycin, removing penicillin allergies where possible for improved outcomes. Finally, the role of artificial intelligence to incorporate into using antibiotics wisely is rapidly emerging but is still in early stages.

SUMMARY

In using antibiotics wisely, targeting such as durations of therapy and conversion from intravenous antibiotic therapy to oral are low hanging fruit. The future of artificial intelligence could automate a lot of this work and is exciting but needs to be proven.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COID/A50.

Parenteral Vancomycin in the Treatment of MRSA-Associated Diabetic Foot Infections: An Unnecessary Risk

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a common and costly complication of diabetes. Soft tissue and bone infections in DFIs frequently lead to amputation and/or sepsis which can be costly for both the patient and the healthcare system. Staphylococcus aureus is the most commonly identified causative agent in DFIs, and people with diabetes may have an increased risk of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to increased susceptibility to severe infection, MRSA in DFIs is associated with high rates of treatment failure, morbidity, and hospitalization costs meaning appropriate treatment is a high priority. While hospitalized patients are usually treated with intravenous (IV) vancomycin, this can be costly in terms of inpatient stays, staffing costs, and adverse events. For example, vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury not only delays hospital discharge and increases costs but is also a particular concern for patients with diabetes who already have an increased risk of kidney problems. Vancomycin-resistant strains of S. aureus have also been identified, which means that alternative treatment options may need to be explored. Treatment alternatives to IV vancomycin, including oral antibiotics, have been shown to provide similar efficacy, with reduced costs, outpatient or home-based administration, and with fewer serious adverse effects. Although infectious disease specialists often use IV vancomycin alone, or in combination, as a first-line therapeutic option, they are increasingly seeing the value of outpatient or at-home oral antibiotics as an alternative. This manuscript reviews the evidence for true costs of vancomycin therapy for MRSA-associated DFIs and examines the alternatives.

Real-World Application of Oral Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous (IV)-only vs oral transitional antimicrobial therapy for infective endocarditis (IE) after implementing a new expected practice within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS).

METHODS

We conducted a multicentered, retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible IE treated with IV-only vs oral therapy at the 3 acute care public hospitals in the LAC DHS system between December 2018 and June 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days, defined as being alive and without recurrence of bacteremia or treatment-emergent infectious complications.

RESULTS

We identified 257 patients with IE treated with IV-only (n = 211) or oral transitional (n = 46) therapy who met study inclusion criteria. Study arms were similar for many demographics; however, the IV cohort was older, had more aortic valve involvement, were hemodialysis patients, and had central venous catheters present. In contrast, the oral cohort had a higher percentage of IE caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical success at 90 days or last follow-up. There was no difference in recurrence of bacteremia or readmission rates. However, patients treated with oral therapy had significantly fewer adverse events. Multivariable regression adjustments did not find significant associations between any selected variables and clinical success across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate similar outcomes of real-world use of oral vs IV-only therapy for IE, in accord with prior randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses.

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.

Highly versus less bioavailable oral antibiotics in the treatment of gram-negative bloodstream infections: a propensity-matched cohort analysis

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes associated with the use of highly bioavailable oral antibiotics (fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) compared with the less-bioavailable oral antibiotics (β-lactams) in gram-negative bloodstream infections (BSIs).

METHODS

Among hospitalized older adult patients in Ontario, Canada, discharged home on oral treatment for gram-negative BSI between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019, we used a matched cohort design to compare outcomes among those receiving highly versus less-bioavailable agents; hard-matching 1:1 on sex, BSI pathogen (Escherichia coli vs. non-E. coli), and infection source (urinary vs. non-urinary/unknown source) along with a propensity score, incorporating specific pathogen, patient, and infection characteristics. The primary outcome was the composite of 90-day all-cause mortality, recurrent BSI with the same pathogen (genus and species), and re-admission to any Ontario hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 2012 patients were included in the study (1006 in each bioavailability category). Those who received highly (compared with less) bioavailable antibiotics at discharge had lower rates of the composite outcome (171/1006 [17.0%] vs. 216/1006 [21.5%]), adjusted odds ratio being 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.92). Recurrent BSI at 90 days was the main driver for the composite outcome occurring in 64 (5.4%) and 107 (9.4%) patients of the highly and less-bioavailable groups, respectively (p < 0.001) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.78).

DISCUSSION

Use of highly (compared with less) bioavailable antibiotics at discharge was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes among patients with gram-negative BSIs.

Oral stepdown in Gram-positive bloodstream infections: A step in the right direction

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to Gram-positive organisms have traditionally been treated with prolonged courses of intravenous antimicrobials. However, this dogma is associated with substantial burden to the patient and health care system. Consequently, there is growing interest in the utilization of oral stepdown therapy, defined as the transition of intravenous therapy to an active oral agent, for this indication. This review highlights available literature examining oral stepdown in adult patients with BSI due to commonly encountered Gram-positive pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus spp. Support for oral stepdown in this setting is primarily derived from observational studies subject to selection bias. Nevertheless, this treatment strategy exhibits promising potential in carefully selected patients as it is consistently associated with reductions in hospital length of stay without jeopardizing clinical cure or survivability. Prospective, randomized trials are needed for validation of oral stepdown in Gram-positive BSI and to identify the optimal patient population and regimen.

Uncomplicated Streptococcal Bacteremia: The Era of Oral Antibiotic Step-down Therapy?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of adults with uncomplicated streptococcal bacteremia who received either oral (PO) step-down or continued intravenous (IV) therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study, including adults admitted with Streptococcal bloodstream infection between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2020. Only patients with uncomplicated Streptococcal bloodstream infections were included. Patients who transitioned to PO therapy within 5 days from bacteremia onset were compared to patients receiving continued IV therapy. The primary outcome was clinical failure, defined by either 90-day hospital readmission or mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and antibiotic-related adverse events (AAEs).

RESULTS

Of the 264 patients included, 42% were transitioned to PO therapy. Group B Streptococcus (22.7%) was the most common isolate. The most common sources of infection were skin and soft tissue (35%) and pulmonary (25%). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay was more common in the continued IV therapy group (22.2%) than in the PO step-down group (5.4%). The frequency of clinical failure was similar in the IV and PO groups (24.2% vs. 18.0%, P=0.23). The IV group had longer hospital LOS (median, [interquartile range (IQR)]) compared with the PO group (7 [5-13.5] vs. 4 [3-5] days, P<0.001). The incidence of AAEs was similar in the IV and PO groups (1.3% vs. 1.8%, P=0.74).

CONCLUSION

Oral antibiotic step-down therapy may be appropriate for the treatment of uncomplicated Streptococcal bacteremia, with consideration of factors such as patient comorbidities, type of infection, source control and clinical progress.

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.

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.

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.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Trials supporting shorter durations of antibiotic therapy for Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI) have recently been published. However, adoption of these findings into practice is unclear given limited eligibility criteria and relatively large non-inferiority margins of these studies. To better understand contemporary management of GN-BSI, we conducted an international survey of infectious diseases (ID) specialists.

Methods

We developed and disseminated an online survey to assess practice patterns involving treatment duration of GN-BSI, including providers from 28 countries. χ² tests, t-tests and multivariable linear regression with generalized estimating equations were used to identify factors associated with treatment duration.

Results

In total, 277 ID specialists completed the survey (64% physicians, 31% pharmacists). The median reported duration of antibiotics was 7 days (IQR, 7–10 days) for all GN-BSI sources. Thirty percent of providers typically recommend durations that differ by ≥7 days depending on the source of GN-BSI, and 71% treat ≥10 days for at least one source. In an adjusted model, factors associated with increased duration included intra-abdominal (+1.01 days, 95% CI 0.57–1.45 days; P < 0.0001), vascular catheter (+0.74 days; 0.33–1.15 days; P = 0.0004), and respiratory (+0.76 days; 0.38–1.14 days; P < 0.0001) sources of GN-BSI relative to urinary sources. Providers that transition patients to oral therapy report shorter durations than those who treat with full IV therapy (−0.60 days; −1.12 to −0.09 days; P = 0.02).

Conclusions

There is extensive heterogeneity in duration of therapy for treating GN-BSI, particularly with respect to source of GN-BSI. Investigations into appropriate treatment durations for different GN-BSI sources are needed.

The Ultra-Broad-Spectrum Beta-lactamase Inhibitor QPX7728 Restores the Potency of Multiple Oral Beta-lactam Antibiotics against Beta-lactamase Producing Strains of Resistant Enterobacterales

QPX7728 is a cyclic boronate ultrabroad-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor, with potent activity against both serine beta-lactamases and metallo-beta-lactamases. QPX7728 can be delivered systemically by the intravenous (i.v.) or oral route of administration. Oral beta-lactam antibiotics alone or in combination with QPX7728 were evaluated for (i) sensitivity to hydrolysis by various common beta-lactamases and inhibition of hydrolysis by QPX7728, (ii) the impact of non-beta-lactamase-mediated resistance mechanisms on potency of beta-lactams, and (iii) in vitro activity against a panel of clinical strains producing diverse beta-lactamases. The carbapenem tebipenem had stability for many serine beta-lactamases from all molecular classes, followed by the cephalosporin ceftibuten. Addition of QPX7728 to tebipenem, ceftibuten, and amdinocillin completely reversed beta-lactamase-mediated resistance in cloned beta-lactamases from serine enzyme and metalloenzyme classes; the degree of potentiation of other beta-lactams varied according to the beta-lactamase produced. Tebipenem, ceftibuten, and cefixime had the lowest MICs against laboratory strains with various combinations of beta-lactamases and the intrinsic drug resistance mechanisms of porin and efflux mutations. There was a high degree of correlation between potency of various combinations against cloned beta-lactamases and efflux/porin mutants and the activity against clinical isolates, showing the importance of inhibition of beta-lactamase along with minimal impact of general intrinsic resistance mechanisms affecting the beta-lactam. Tebipenem and ceftibuten appeared to be the best beta-lactam antibiotics when combined with QPX7728 for activity against Enterobacterales that produce serine beta-lactamases or metallo-beta-lactamases.

Variability in oral antibiotic step-down therapy in the management of Gram-negative bloodstream infections

There are important gaps in the literature regarding the role and timing of oral therapy for Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSIs). To better understand contemporary management practices involving oral step-down in GN-BSI, we conducted an international survey of infectious diseases (ID) specialists. We developed and disseminated an online survey to ID specialists to assess practice patterns involving oral step-down in GN-BSIs, including providers from six continents and 28 countries. χ² tests and generalised estimating equations were used to identify factors associated with oral step-down. In total, 277 ID specialists completed the survey (64% physicians, 31% pharmacists). Relative to a line source, oral step-down was more common in abdominal [OR = 1.96 (95% CI 1.48-2.61); P < 0.001], pneumonia [2.24 (1.67-2.99); P < 0.001], skin [7.26 (4.71-11.20); P < 0.001] and urinary [9.15 (5.73-14.60); P < 0.001] sources of GN-BSI. US providers were more likely to practice oral step-down than non-US providers (OR = 4.35, 95% CI 2.57-7.36; P < 0.001). Moreover, 40% of providers practice oral step-down for some, but not all, sources of GN-BSI. Among all providers, 23-53% (depending on GN-BSI source) recommend extended (≥5 days) intravenous (IV) therapy before oral step-down or ongoing IV therapy. Most respondents (76% of all providers; 80% of ID physicians) expressed interest in enrolling patients in a trial of full IV versus early oral step-down for GN-BSI. There is extensive heterogeneity in oral step-down practices for GN-BSI. The optimal role of oral step-down in managing GN-BSIs warrants further investigation.

Oral β-Lactam Antibiotics vs Fluoroquinolones or Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole for Definitive Treatment of Enterobacterales Bacteremia From a Urine Source

Importance

Oral β-lactam antibiotics are traditionally not recommended to treat Enterobacterales bacteremia because of concerns over subtherapeutic serum concentrations, but there is a lack of outcomes data, specifically after initial treatment with parenteral antibiotics. Given the limited data and increasing limitations of fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), oral β-lactam antibiotics may be a valuable additional treatment option.

Objective

To compare definitive therapy with oral β-lactam antibiotics vs fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX for Enterobacterales bacteremia from a suspected urine source.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2007, to September 30, 2015, at 114 Veterans Affairs hospitals among 4089 adults with Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp, or Proteus spp bacteremia and matching urine culture results. Additional inclusion criteria were receipt of active parenteral antibiotic(s) followed by conversion to an oral antibiotic. Exclusion criteria were previous Enterobacterales bacteremia, urologic abscess, or chronic prostatitis. Data were analyzed from April 15, 2019, to July 26, 2020.

Exposures

Conversion of therapy to an oral β-lactam antibiotic vs fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX after 1 to 5 days of parenteral antibiotics.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was a composite of either 30-day all-cause mortality or 30-day recurrent bacteremia. Propensity-based overlap weights were used to adjust for differences between groups. Log binomial regression models were used to estimate adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and adjusted risk differences (aRDs).

Results

Of the 4089 eligible patients (3731 men [91.2%]; median age, 71 years [interquartile range, 63-81 years]), 955 received an oral β-lactam antibiotic, and 3134 received fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX. The primary outcome occurred for 42 patients (4.4%) who received β-lactam antibiotics and 94 patients (3.0%) who received fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX (aRD, 0.99% [95% CI, -0.42% to 2.40%]; aRR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.87-1.95]). Mortality rates were 3.0% (n = 29) for patients receiving β-lactam antibiotics vs 2.6% (n = 82) for those receiving fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX (aRD, 0.06% [95% CI, -1.13% to 1.26%]; aRR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.67-1.56]). Recurrent bacteremia rates were 1.5% (n = 14) among those receiving β-lactam antibiotics vs 0.4% (n = 12) among those receiving fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX (aRD, 1.03% [95% CI, 0.24%-1.82%]; aRR, 3.43 [95% CI, 0.42-27.90]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of adults with E coli, Klebsiella spp, or Proteus spp bacteremia from a suspected urine source, the relative risk of recurrent bacteremia was not significantly higher with β-lactam antibiotics compared with fluoroquinolones or TMP-SMX, and the absolute risk and risk difference were small (ie, <3%). No significant difference in mortality was observed. Oral β-lactam antibiotics may be a reasonable step-down treatment option, primarily when alternative options are limited by resistance or adverse effects. Further study is needed because statistical power was limited owing to a low number of recurrent bacteremia events.

Dalbavancin and telavancin in the treatment of infective endocarditis: a literature review

Glycopeptides have an established role in the management of infective endocarditis, and feature in current treatment guidelines. Newer lipoglycopeptide agents (dalbavancin, telavancin and oritavancin), which are analogues of glycopeptides with structural modifications giving rise to added novel mechanisms of antimicrobial activity, are approved for the treatment of Gram-positive skin and skin structure infections, and also for nosocomial pneumonia (only telavancin has approval for the latter indication). Recent evidence has also emerged to support their use in the treatment of bone and joint infections. This article reviews the current literature on dalbavancin and telavancin in the treatment of infective endocarditis, a condition for which the role of these agents is yet to be established.