When are Oral Antibiotics a Safe and Effective Choice for Bacterial Bloodstream Infections? An Evidence-Based Narrative Review

Evaluation of Sequential Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Bloodstream Infections

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) antibiotics have historically been considered standard of care for treatment of bloodstream infections (BSIs). Recent literature has shown sequential oral (PO) therapy to be noninferior to IV antibiotics for certain pathogens and disease states. However, a gap exists in the literature for BSI caused by Enterococcus faecalis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of definitive sequential PO therapy to definitive IV therapy in patients with E faecalis BSI.

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study of adult patients with at least one blood culture positive for E faecalis from January 2017 to November 2022. Patients with polymicrobial BSI, concomitant infections requiring prolonged IV antibiotic therapy, those who did not receive antibiotic therapy, and those who died within 72 hours of index culture were excluded. Subjects were matched based on source of infection in a 2:1 (IV:PO) ratio. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), antibiotic duration, and 30-day readmission rate.

RESULTS

Of the 186 patients who met criteria for inclusion, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary composite outcome for PO compared to IV therapy (14.5% vs 21.8%; OR 0.53 [0.23-1.25]) or 30-day readmission (17.5% vs 29%; OR 0.53 [0.25-1.13]). Hospital LOS was significantly longer in patients receiving IV-only therapy (6 days vs 14 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Sequential oral therapy for E faecalis BSI had similar outcomes compared to IV-only treatment and may be considered in eligible patients.

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.

Use of Fluoroquinolones or Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim Compared to Β-Lactams for Oral Step-Down Therapy in Hospitalized Patients With Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated Enterobacterales bacteremia from a urinary source has traditionally consisted of fluoroquinolones (FQs) and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SXT). However, adverse events associated with FQs and emerging antimicrobial resistance have led to alternative agents, specifically oral Β-lactams (OBLs), being utilized despite concern of subtherapeutic serum concentrations related to their low relative bioavailability.

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy of antibiotic therapies with bioavailability differences in patients with uncomplicated bacteremia from a urinary source.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study comparing clinical efficacy in hospitalized adult patients receiving OBL or FQ/SXT. Patients were required to receive at least 48 hours of appropriate intravenous antibiotic therapy and at least one dose of oral therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included readmission with recurrent infectious etiology and readmission due to Clostridioides difficile infection.

RESULTS

Of 210 eligible patients, 91 received FQ/SXT and 119 received OBL. There was no difference between the groups in all-cause hospital readmission (FQ/SXT: 16.5%; OBL: 14.3%) (P = 0.660 [95% confidence interval, CI = -0.076, 0.120]) or readmission with recurrent bacteremia (FQ/SXT: 0%; OBL: 3.4%) (P = 0.135). There was a significant difference in repeat hospital admission with recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) (FQ/SXT: 0%, OBL: 5.0%) (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

OBLs appear to be non-inferior to FQ/SXT in the rate of all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days. However, OBLs may be associated with increased readmissions with recurrent UTI.

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.

The Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance in Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Infective Endocarditis: A Multicentric Retrospective Analysis

Background and Objectives: Multidrug-resistant microorganisms have made treating bacterial infections challenging. Resistance to antibiotics is expected to overcome efforts to produce new, effective antibacterial medication that is lifesaving in many situations. Infective endocarditis (IE) is a life-threatening infection that affects 5–15 per 100,000 patients annually and requires rapid antibiotic therapy to prevent morbidity and mortality. Materials and Methods: The present research assessed IE cases over five years, from a multicentric database, with the main objective of determining the degree of antibiotic resistance in these patients, stratified by Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Results: Bad oral hygiene was present in 58.6% of patients from the Gram-negative group (vs. 38.7% in the Gram-positive group). Non-valvular heart disease was identified in approximately 40% of all patients, and valvopathies in approximately 20%. It was observed that 37.9% of Gram-negative IE bacteria were resistant to three or more antibiotics, whereas 20.7% were susceptible. Among Gram-positive infections, S. aureus was the most commonly involved pathogen, with a multidrug-resistant pattern in 11.2% of patients, while Acinetobacter baumannii had the highest resistance pattern of all Gram-negative pathogens, with 27.4% of all samples resistant to three or more antibiotics. Patients with Gram-negative IE were 4.2 times more likely to die. The mortality risk was 4 times higher when bacteria resistant to two or more antibiotics was involved and 5.7 times higher with resistance patterns to three or more antibiotics than the reference group with no antibiotic resistance. Peripheral catheters were the most common cause of multi-resistant IE, followed by heart surgery, dental procedures, and ENT interventions. Conclusions: Even though Gram-positive infections were the most frequent (83.0% of all cases), Gram-negative IE infections are substantially more deadly than Gram-positive IE infections. However, it was also observed that patients with Gram-negative infections were more likely to have underlying comorbidities, be institutionalized, and be underweight. Although the Gram-negative infections were more severe, their resistance patterns were similar to Gram-positive bacteria. As resistance patterns increase, more efforts should be made to prevent a healthcare catastrophe. At the same time, careful prophylaxis should be considered in patients at risk, including those with central catheters, undergoing dental procedures, and with poor oral hygiene.

Evaluation of early clinical failure criteria in Enterococcus species bloodstream infection

PURPOSE

Early clinical failure criteria (ECFC) were recently introduced to predict unfavorable outcomes in patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infections (BSI). ECFC include hypotension, tachycardia, tachypnea or mechanical ventilation, altered mental status, and leukocytosis evaluated at 72-96 h after BSI. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess performance of ECFC in predicting 28-day mortality in Enterococcus species BSI.

METHODS

Hospitalized adults with Enterococcus species BSI at Prisma Health hospitals from 1 January 2015 to 31 July 2018 were identified. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between ECFC and 28-day mortality. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to measure model discrimination.

RESULTS

Among 157 patients, 28 (18%) died within 28 days of BSI. After adjustments in multivariate model, the risk of 28-day mortality increased in the presence of each additional ECFC (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3, p = 0.005). Infective endocarditis (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4-10.7, p = 0.01) was independently associated with 28-day mortality. AUROC curve of ECFC model in predicting 28-day mortality was 0.74 with ECFC of 2 identified as the best breakpoint. Mortality was 8% in patients with ECFC < 2 compared to 33% in those with ECFC ≥ 2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ECFC had good discrimination in predicting 28-day mortality in patients with Enterococcus species BSI. These criteria may have utility in future clinical investigations.

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.

Fluoroquinolone versus Beta-Lactam Oral Step-Down Therapy for Uncomplicated Streptococcal Bloodstream Infections

Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are often preferred as oral step-down therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to favorable pharmacokinetic parameters; however, they are also associated with serious adverse events. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes for patients who received an oral FQ versus an oral beta-lactam (BL) as step-down therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal BSIs. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzed adult patients who completed therapy with an oral FQ or BL with at least one blood culture positive for a Streptococcus species from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2019. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as the lack of all-cause mortality, recurrent BSI with the same organism, and infection-related readmission at 90 days. A multivariable logistic regression model for predictors of clinical failure was conducted. A total of 220 patients were included, with 87 (40%) receiving an FQ and 133 (60%) receiving a BL. Step-down therapy with an oral BL was noninferior to an oral FQ (93.2% versus 92.0%; mean difference, 1.2%; 90% confidence interval [CI], -5.2 to 7.8). No differences were seen in 90-day mortality, 90-day recurrent BSI, 90-day infection-related readmission, or 90-day incidence of Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea. Predictors of clinical failure included oral step-down transition before day 3 (odds ratio [OR] = 5.18; 95% CI, 1.21, 22.16) and low-dose oral step-down therapy (OR = 2.74; 95% CI, 0.95, 7.90). Our results suggest that oral step-down therapy for uncomplicated streptococcal BSI with a BL is noninferior to an FQ.

Efficacy of Early Oral Switch with β-Lactams for Low-Risk Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of early oral switch (EOS) prior to 14 days for low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (LR-SAB), which is the primary treatment strategy used at our institution. The usual recommended therapy is 14 days of intravenous (i.v.) antibiotics. All patients with SAB at our hospital were identified between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018. Those meeting low-risk criteria (health care-associated, no evidence of deep infection or demonstrated involvement of prosthetic material, and no further positive blood cultures after 72 h) were included in the study. The primary outcome was occurrence of a SAB-related complication within 90 days. There were 469 SAB episodes during the study period, 100 (21%) of whom met inclusion criteria. EOS was performed in 84 patients. In this group, line infection was the source in 79%, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus caused 95% of SABs and 74% of patients received i.v. flucloxacillin. The median durations of i.v. and oral antibiotics in the EOS group were 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 6) and 10 days (IQR, 9 to 14), respectively. A total of 71% of patients received flucloxacillin as their EOS agent. Overall, 86% of oral step-down therapy was with beta-lactams. One patient (1%) undergoing EOS had SAB relapse within 90 days. No deaths attributable to SAB occurred within 90 days. In this low-MRSA-prevalence LR-SAB cohort, EOS was associated with a low incidence of SAB-related complications. This was achieved with oral beta-lactam therapy in most patients. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

Current Evidence on Oral Antibiotics for Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review

Infective endocarditis (IE) continues to be associated with high morbidity and mortality, even when treated with optimal antibiotic regimens. The selection of treatment depends on the causative pathogen, its antibiotic susceptibility profile, local and systemic complications and the presence of prosthetic materials or devices. Standard therapy typically involves 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) bactericidal therapy. However, there are instances in which IV antibiotic administration may be challenging due to cost, complications of IV access, adverse side-effects of the medication or concerns for misuse of the IV line. Current clinical guidance from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology cite scenarios where oral antibiotics can be considered for treatment of IE, though these situations are relatively infrequent and data to show their non-inferiority limited. Recently, a well-designed randomized clinical study reported favorable outcomes for partial oral antimicrobial therapy regimens given to patients with staphylococcal, streptococcal and enterococcal IE deemed clinically stable and without complications such as perivalvular abscess. Oral antibiotics, usually given in combination, were selected by infectious disease providers for their favorable pharmacologic properties and predicted bactericidal activity. There was a careful selection of patients who were transitioned to oral regimens. Before recommending routine use of oral antibiotics in the care of patients with IE, additional studies that better define eligible patients and that use regimens available in the countries that adopt this practice should be performed. If further studies confirm non-inferior outcomes with partial oral antibiotics for the treatment of IE, medical treatment could be delivered in a simpler, more costeffective manner, and likely with lower rates of adverse side-effects.

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

Background

Bacteremia in adult patients has traditionally been treated with extended courses of intravenous antibiotics. Data on the use of (or rapid transition to) oral therapy are limited.

Methods

Adult infectious disease physicians participating in the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (EIN) were surveyed regarding their use of oral antibiotics in patients with bacteremia. Respondents were asked to assume that patients were hemodynamically stable, recovered bacteria were susceptible to potential antibiotics, adequate source control had been achieved, and patients had adequate gastrointestinal absorption. Variables of specific bacteria, oral agent, and associated infection were included.

Results

A total of 655 (50%) of 1321 EIN participants responded. Under certain conditions, 88% would transition patients with Gram-negative bacteremia to complete a course of therapy with oral antibiotics; 71% would transition patients with Gram-positive bacteremia to oral agents. Only 78 (12%) respondents would not treat any bacteremic patient with oral agents. Most respondents (≥75%) were comfortable treating infections secondary to Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella, Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and β-hemolytic streptococci with oral agents. Fewer than 20% endorsed use of oral antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus or in cases of endocarditis. Fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were the preferred agents in Gram-negative bacteremia; linezolid and β-lactams were the preferred agents in Gram-positive bacteremia.

Conclusions

In select circumstances, the majority of respondents would transition patients to oral antibiotics, in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteremia. Most agreed with the use of oral agents in Gram-negative bacteremia caused by Enterobacteriaceae, but they would not use oral agents for Gram-positive bacteremia caused by S aureus or in endocarditis.

Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of non-Staphylococcal Gram-positive bacterial bloodstream infections

Background:

Data on the effectiveness of definitive oral (PO) antibiotics for BSIs in preparation for discharge from hospital are lacking, particularly for Gram-positive bacterial BSIs (GP-BSI). The objective of this study was to determine rates of treatment failure based on bioavailability of PO antimicrobial agents used for GP-BSI.

Methods:

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients admitted to an academic medical center over a three-year period. Patients with a non-staphylococcal GP-BSI who received intravenous antibiotics and were then switched to PO antibiotics for at least a third of their treatment course were included. The cohort was stratified into high (⩾90%) and low (<90%) bioavailability groups. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing clinical failure in each group. Secondary endpoints included clinical failure stratified by antibiotic group, bactericidal versus bacteriostatic PO agents, and organism.

Results:

A total of 103 patients met criteria for inclusion, which failed to reach the a priori power calculation. Of the patients included, 26 received high bioavailability agents and 77 received low bioavailability agents. Infections originated largely from a pulmonary source (30%) and were caused primarily by streptococcal species (75%). Treatment failure rates were 19.2% in the high bioavailability group and 23.4% in the low bioavailability group (p = 0.66). Clinical failure stratified by subgroups also did not yield statistically significant differences.

Conclusions:

Clinical failure rates were similar among patients definitively treated with high or low bioavailability agents for GP-BSI, though the study was underpowered to detect such a difference.