Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics Research Articles

Comparing Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics Administration for Cellulitis Infection: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Cellulitis is defined as an infection of the skin that is usually characterized by localized but poorly demarcated areas of erythema, swelling, and pain. Erysipelas is a subtype of cellulitis that is characterized by a more superficial infection, often involving the face. Because gram-positive bacteria are the most common infective agent, beta-lactam antibiotics such as cephalosporins are commonly used. However, guidelines and physician preference vary widely as different antibiotic options and routes of administration exist, in addition to the fact that most cases are treated empirically without microbiological lab guidance. This lack of standardization in evidence, guidelines, and physician practice prompted this systematic review and meta-analysis of both randomized trial data and cohort studies to aggregate the currently available evidence for the optimal routes of antibiotic administration in cellulitis treatment. Objective The primary objective of our review is to compare the efficacy of oral versus intravenous antibiotic administration for cellulitis infections, thereby providing clinicians with evidence-based guidelines for treatment. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through Ovid as well as Web of Science and CINAHL for all available literature comparing different routes of antibiotic administration in the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas. We will perform title and abstract as well as full-text screening in duplicate according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and then extract the relevant data using a prepiloted data sheet. The primary outcome for our review is the duration of infection resolution, and secondary outcomes such as incidence of sepsis, mortality, hospital admission, and Clostridium difficile infection. We will assess the risk of bias in our included studies using the RoB 2.0 (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (Risk of bias in non-randomized studies for interventions) tools, with a final quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework and a sensitivity analysis to examine heterogeneity. Results We will publish the final results of our systematic review in a peer-reviewed academic journal. This project received no funding or financial assistance. Data analysis is currently underway, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in late November 2023. Conclusions To our knowledge, this will be the most up-to-date review of the best available evidence comparing different routes of antibiotic administration for cellulitis. Because of the vast selection of antibiotic options available and the empirical nature of the treatment, we anticipate heterogeneity within our data but nonetheless hope to provide aggregated evidence on the efficacy of intravenous versus oral administration of antibiotics in cellulitis treatment. We hope the results from this study will better inform physician practices in the future for cellulitis infections. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/48342

254. Excellent Outcomes with Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infections: A Single-Center Experience

Abstract Background The OVIVA trial, published in 2019, demonstrated equivalent efficacy of oral (PO) versus intravenous (IV) antibiotics for bone and joint infections. We report our group’s one-year outcomes in a cohort of such patients who received PO or IV antibiotics. Methods Our orthopedic surgery and orthopedic infectious diseases (ID) groups agreed to employ early switch to PO in patients with a first episode of non-vertebral osteomyelitis (OM), native or prosthetic joint infection (NJA or PJI), or hardware infections when a pathogen susceptible to highly bioavailable antibiotics had been identified and the patient was perceived to be at low risk for medication non-adherence. We reviewed patients 19+ years old seen in the Ortho ID clinic for one of these conditions from July 1st through December 31st, 2019. Data recorded included patient demographics and comorbidities, infection type and site, microbiology, and surgical and antibiotic management. Primary outcome was treatment failure at 1 year, defined as death, unplanned surgery at same site, or chronic antibiotic suppression. Results Forty patients (all IV antibiotics, n=17; initial or switch to PO, n=23) were included. Median IV duration was 15 days. PJI was the most common diagnosis (n=22), followed by other hardware infection and OM (n=7 each). Of the PJIs, 13/22 were managed with 2-stage exchange and 11/13 of these received all-IV therapy. Of the hardware infections, 4/7 underwent debridement and retention or single-stage exchange and all of these received initial or switch to PO therapy. Staphylococci (n=14 S. aureus and n=7 coagulase-negative) and streptococci (n=12) were the most common pathogens. Amoxicillin (n=8), trimethoprim-sulfa (n=6), and levofloxacin (n=3) were the most-used PO antibiotics. The PO group received longer treatment (mean 67 vs 48 days). No treatment failures occurred in the patients who started or switch to PO antibiotics, whereas 35% of patients who received all-IV therapy experienced failure. Conclusion Adopting known risk factors for poor outcome in bone and joint infection such as prior treatment failure and no identified pathogen as exclusion criteria for early switch to PO antibiotic therapy led to excellent one-year treatment outcomes across a range of musculoskeletal infections. Disclosures Angela Hewlett, MD, MS, Mapp Biopharmaceutical (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Angela Hewlett, MD, MS, Mapp Biopharmaceutical, Inc (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator Nicolas W. Cortes-Penfield, MD, Nothing to disclose

Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Residual Osteomyelitis After Amputation in the Diabetic Foot

The standard management for residual osteomyelitis following amputation in a diabetic foot infection includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate whether oral antibiotic therapy led to treatment failure more than intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. The primary endpoint was treatment failure within one year of the initial amputation, defined by re-operation for residual osteomyelitic infection or a remaining nonhealing wound at the surgical site. All patients received at least 4 weeks of antibiotics and were chosen for oral or intravenous route of administration by infectious disease specialists. Characteristics including age, sex, hemoglobin A1c, BMI, tobacco use, PVD, homelessness and IDSA classification were also assessed for influence on antibiotic success and failure. Of the 65 patients meeting inclusion criteria, treatment failure occurred in 32 and treatment success occurred in 33. Of the treatment failures, 17 (53%) were in the intravenous group, and 15 (47%) were in the oral group. The differences between the modalities of antibiotic administration and their failure rates were not found to be statistically significant (p=.28 (proportional difference: -14%, 95% confidence interval [CI]:-36% to 10%)).

Facing multidrug-resistant pathogens in periprosthetic joint infections with self-administered outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy-A prospective cohort study.

A key factor in the successful management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) besides the surgical regime is a consistent antimicrobial therapy. Recently, oral versusintravenous (IV) antibiotics for bone and joint infectiontrial demonstrated the noninferiority of oral antimicrobial therapy compared to IV, implying that an early transition to oral administration is reasonable. It is likely that the international consensus meeting of musculoskeletal Infectionsand the European Bone and Joint Infection Societywill consider these findings. However, rising levels of antimicrobial resistance are challenging and recommendations for dealing with multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens resistant to oral antibiotics are lacking. This study focuses on establishing guidance towards their management in PJI. From December 2015 to June 2019, patients with MDR pathogens were included in a single-center prospective cohort study and treated with self-administered outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (S-OPAT) based on a two-stage revision strategy. Demographics, pathogens, antimicrobial agents, and outcomes were recorded. A total of 1738 outpatient days in 26 patients were analyzed. The incidence of pathogens resistant to oral antibiotics in PJI was 4%, most frequently encountered were staphylococcus epidermidis. The Kaplan-Meier-estimated infection-free survival after 3 years was 90% (95% confidence interval, 84.6%-95.5%). We recorded adverse events in 6 of 54 (11%) S-OPAT episodes (3.45/1000 S-OPAT days). (i) S-OPAT in two-stage revision arthroplasty to counter increasing numbers of MDR pathogens resistant to oral agents can achieve a high infection eradication rate and (ii) should therefore be taken into account at the next society's consensus treatment updates.

Clinical Experience of Implementing Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics (OVIVA) in a Specialist Orthopedic Hospital.

The Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics (OVIVA) Trial demonstrated that oral therapy, when used during the initial 6 weeks in the treatment in bone and joint infection (BJI), is noninferior to intravenous therapy. To date there are no reports describing reproducibility of these findings in a real-world setting. We studied all patients diagnosed with BJI at our hospital 12 months pre- and postimplementation of the OVIVA trial findings into clinical practice. An infection consultant recommended antibiotic treatment and patients were followed up by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) service. Prospective data from a local registry was used to analyze baseline clinical details, outcome, length of hospital stay (LOS), and costs. A cohort of 328 patients (145 pre- and 183 postimplementation) was analyzed. Postimplementation, 66.1% of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen. Definite failure at 1 year was 13.6% in the preimplementation group and 18.6% in the postimplementation group (P = .154). Postimplementation, definite failure was more common in patients requiring intravenous antibiotics due to lack of suitable oral options (intravenous, 26.7% and oral, 14.3%). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) requiring closer monitoring or change to treatment were more common postimplementation (21.0% and 37.1%, respectively). ADR-related hospital readmissions were similar in both groups (2.1 and 2.2%). Comparing both groups, the postimplementation group showed a reduction of 4 days in the median LOS and a median cost reduction of £2764.28 per patient. The OVIVA trial findings can be safely implemented into clinical practice when patients on oral antibiotics are followed up by an established OPAT service. Two-thirds of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen. Implementation led to reductions in hospital LOS and antibiotic costs.

Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Pleural Space Infection: a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Pleural Space Infection: a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial.

Background:Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial 'Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics' (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods:A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results:Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions:Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections. Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections. Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

A Prospective Randomized Trial to Assess Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Postoperative Wound Infection After Extremity Fractures (POvIV Study): Erratum.

A Prospective Randomized Trial to Assess Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Postoperative Wound Infection After Extremity Fractures (POvIV Study): Erratum.

A Prospective Randomized Trial to Assess Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for the Treatment of Postoperative Wound Infection After Extremity Fractures (POvIV Study).

Patients surgically treated for infection after extremity fractures are typically discharged with a 6- to 12-week antibiotic regimen. Intravenous (IV) antibiotics are associated with significant cost and potential complications of deep vein thrombosis, line clotting, and sepsis. Many of the pathogens that cause musculoskeletal infection have both oral (PO) and IV antibiotic options with adequate bioavailability and antibacterial effect, yet IV antibiotics remain the standard of care absent evidence that PO options are clinically as efficacious. The POvIV study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare PO with IV antibiotic therapy in patients with postoperative wound infections after extremity fractures. Patients between the ages of 18 and 84 who have a culture-positive surgical site infection after internal fixation for fracture repair or arthrodesis are approached for this study, and if they provide consent, are randomly assigned to receive either PO or IV antibiotics. Antibiotic selection is based on culture and sensitivity results. Randomization determines the route of administration. Patients are followed for 1 year after study enrollment. This study will be the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PO antibiotic use for treatment of postoperative wound infections. Results will inform clinician decisions on antibiotic delivery in patients with postoperative wound infections.

Does Administration of Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Third Molar Removal Have an Effect on the Incidence of Alveolar Osteitis or Postoperative Surgical Site Infections?

To compare the incidence of postoperative alveolar osteitis (AO) and surgical site infections (SSIs) in 2 separate cohorts of patients undergoing elective third molar removal: those who received postoperative oral (PO) antibiotics and those who received perioperative intravenous (IV) antibiotics. A retrospective cohort study of all patients 14 to 30years old undergoing elective outpatient third molar removal under a single surgeon's service over a 12-year period was completed. Patients undergoing third molar removal during the first 72months received postoperative PO antibiotics alone. Patients undergoing third molar removal during the second 72months received perioperative IV antibiotics alone. The primary predictor variable for the study was the antibiotic regimen used at the time of third molar removal. The primary outcome variable was the postoperative development of AO or SSI. Covariates included age and gender. Univariable and multivariable regression models assessed for associations between the antibiotic regimen used and the presence of AO and SSI. The study sample consisted of 1,895 patients (1,020 patients receiving postoperative PO antibiotics and 875 patients receiving perioperative IV antibiotics). Of patients receiving postoperative PO antibiotics, 6.4% developed AO an average of 5.7days after the procedure and 2.6% developed an SSI an average of 23.2days after the procedure. Of patients receiving perioperative IV antibiotics, 5.5% developed AO an average of 6.2days after the procedure and 3.3% developed an SSI an average of 18.2days after the procedure. No statistically significant associations between the antibiotic regimen used and the presence of AO or SSI were identified in univariable (P = 0.42 for AO, P = 0.32 for SSI) or multivariable (P = 0.65 for AO, P = 0.26 for SSI) analyses. In the postoperative PO antibiotic cohort, older age (P<.001) and female gender (P<.001) were significantly associated with the development of AO, and female gender (P=.015) was significantly associated with the presence of an SSI. In the perioperative IV antibiotic cohort, female gender was significantly associated with the development of AO (P=.011), and younger age was significantly associated with the presence of an SSI (P=.011). The use of a postoperative PO versus a perioperative IV antibiotic regimen does not significantly alter the incidence of AO or SSI after elective third molar removal. If the surgeon chooses to use antibiotics in the setting of third molar surgery, then perioperative IV antibiotics are preferable over postoperative PO antibiotics because they obviate any issues with patient compliance and might be less costly.