Dataset Information

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS:We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS:Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS:Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

SUBMITTER: Li HK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6522347 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

Li Ho-Kwong HK Rombach Ines I Zambellas Rhea R Walker A Sarah AS McNally Martin A MA Atkins Bridget L BL Lipsky Benjamin A BA Hughes Harriet C HC Bose Deepa D Kümin Michelle M Scarborough Claire C Matthews Philippa C PC Brent Andrew J AJ Lomas Jose J Gundle Roger R Rogers Mark M Taylor Adrian A Angus Brian B Byren Ivor I Berendt Anthony R AR Warren Simon S Fitzgerald Fiona E FE Mack Damien J F DJF Hopkins Susan S Folb Jonathan J Reynolds Helen E HE Moore Elinor E Marshall Jocelyn J Jenkins Neil N Moran Christopher E CE Woodhouse Andrew F AF Stafford Samantha S Seaton R Andrew RA Vallance Claire C Hemsley Carolyn J CJ Bisnauthsing Karen K Sandoe Jonathan A T JAT Aggarwal Ila I Ellis Simon C SC Bunn Deborah J DJ Sutherland Rebecca K RK Barlow Gavin G Cooper Cushla C Geue Claudia C McMeekin Nicola N Briggs Andrew H AH Sendi Parham P Khatamzas Elham E Wangrangsimakul Tri T Wong T H Nicholas THN Barrett Lucinda K LK Alvand Abtin A Old C Fraser CF Bostock Jennifer J Paul John J Cooke Graham G Thwaites Guy E GE Bejon Philip P Scarborough Matthew M

The New England journal of medicine 20190101 5

<h4>Background</h4>The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication.<h4>Methods</h4>We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), ...[more]

PMID: 30699315

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Bone and joint infection in adults arises most commonly as a complication of joint replacement surgery, fracture fixation and diabetic foot infection. The associated morbidity can be devastating to patients and costs the National Health Service an estimated £20,000 to £40,000 per patient. Current standard of care in most UK centres includes a prolonged course (4-6 weeks) of intravenous antibiotics supported, if available, by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy service. Intravenous therapy carries with it substantial risks and inconvenience to patients, and the antibiotic-related costs are approximately ten times that of oral therapy. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that oral therapy results in inferior outcomes. We hypothesise that, by selecting oral agents with high bioavailability, good tissue penetration and activity against the known or likely pathogens, key outcomes in patients managed primarily with oral therapy are non-inferior to those in patients treated by intravenous therapy. METHODS:The OVIVA trial is a parallel group, randomised (1:1), un-blinded, non-inferiority trial conducted in thirty hospitals across the UK. Eligible participants are adults (>18 years) with a clinical syndrome consistent with a bone, joint or metalware-associated infection who have received ?7 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative therapy in patients treated without surgical intervention). Participants are randomised to receive either oral or intravenous antibiotics, selected by a specialist infection physician, for the first 6 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome measure is definite treatment failure within one year of randomisation, as assessed by a blinded endpoint committee, according to pre-defined microbiological, histological and clinical criteria. Enrolling 1,050 subjects will provide 90 % power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as less than 7.5 % absolute increase in treatment failure rate in patients randomised to oral therapy as compared to intravenous therapy (one-sided alpha of 0.05). DISCUSSION:If our results demonstrate non-inferiority of orally administered antibiotic therapy, this trial is likely to facilitate a dramatically improved patient experience and alleviate a substantial financial burden on healthcare services. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN91566927 - 14/02/2013.

Project description:BackgroundBronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation.ObjectivesTo determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.Search methodsWe identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication.Selection criteriaWe planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Main resultsWe identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review.Authors' conclusionsThere is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. If antibiotics are commenced promptly, infection can be eradicated. The aim of the trial was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin versus oral ciprofloxacin in the eradication of P aeruginosa. METHODS:We did a multicentre, parallel group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 72 cystic fibrosis centres (70 in the UK and two in Italy). Eligible participants were older than 28 days with an isolate of P aeruginosa (either the first ever isolate or a new isolate after at least 1 year free of infection). Participants were excluded if the P aeruginosa was resistant to, or they had a contraindication to, one or more of the trial antibiotics; if they were already receiving P aeruginosa suppressive therapy; if they had received any P aeruginosa eradication therapy within the previous 9 months; or if they were pregnant or breastfeeding. We used web-based randomisation to assign patients to 14 days intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 12 weeks oral ciprofloxacin. Both were combined with 12 weeks inhaled colistimethate sodium. Randomisation lists were generated by a statistician, who had no involvement in the trial, using a computer-generated list. Randomisation was stratified by centre and because of the nature of the interventions, blinding was not possible. Our primary outcome was eradication of P aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. TORPEDO-CF was registered on the ISRCTN register, ISRCTN02734162, and EudraCT, 2009-012575-10. FINDINGS:Between Oct 5, 2010, and Jan 27, 2017, 286 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 137 to intravenous antibiotics and 149 to oral antibiotics. 55 (44%) of 125 participants in the intravenous group and 68 (52%) of 130 participants in the oral group achieved the primary outcome. Participants randomly assigned to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome, although the difference between groups was not statistically significant (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·65-1·09; p=0·18). 11 serious adverse events occurred in ten (8%) of 126 participants in the intravenous antibiotics group and 17 serious adverse events in 12 (8%) of 146 participants in the oral antibiotics group. INTERPRETATION:Compared with oral therapy, intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P aeruginosa in a greater proportion of patients with cystic fibrosis and was more expensive. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group than the oral group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over oral treatment because intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUNDING:National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess is the most common etiology of liver abscess in Singapore and much of Asia, and its incidence is increasing. Current management includes prolonged intravenous antibiotic therapy, but there is limited evidence to guide oral conversion. The implicated K1/K2 capsule strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae is almost universally susceptible to ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic with high oral bioavailability. Our primary aim is to compare the efficacy of early (< one week) step-down to oral antibiotics, to continuing four weeks of intravenous antibiotics, in patients with Klebsiella liver abscess.The study is designed as a multi-center randomized open-label active comparator-controlled non-inferiority trial, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. Eligible participants will be inpatients over the age of 21 with a CT or ultrasound scan suggestive of a liver abscess, and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from abscess fluid or blood. Randomization into intervention or active control arms will be performed with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants randomized to active control will receive IV ceftriaxone 2 grams daily to complete a total of four weeks of IV antibiotics. Participants randomized to intervention will be immediately converted to oral ciprofloxacin 750 mg twice daily. At Week four, all participants will undergo abdominal imaging and be assessed for clinical response (CRP < 20 mg/l, absence of fever, plus scan showing that the maximal diameter of the abscess has reduced). If criteria are met, antibiotics are stopped; if not, oral antibiotics are continued, with reassessment for clinical response fortnightly. If criteria for clinical response are met by Week 12, the primary endpoint of clinical cure is met. A cost analysis will be performed to assess the cost saving of early conversion to oral antibiotics, and a quality of life analysis will be performed to assess whether treatment with oral antibiotics is less burdensome than prolonged IV antibiotics.Our results would help inform local and international practice guidelines regarding the optimal antibiotic management of Klebsiella liver abscess. A finding of non-inferiority may translate to the wider adoption of a more cost-effective strategy that reduces hospital length of stay and improves patient-centered outcomes and satisfaction.Clinical trials gov NCT01723150.

Project description:PurposeAntibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) was usually used to prevent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary total knee arthroplasty (PTKA), but whether to use ALBC or plain bone cement in PTKA remains unclear. We aimed to compare the occurrence rate of PJI using two different cements, and to investigate the efficacy of different antibiotic types and doses administered in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) with ALBC.MethodsThe availability of ALBC for preventing PJI was evaluated by using a systematic review and meta-analysis referring to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Existing articles until December 2021 involving PTKA patients with both ALBC and plain bone cement cohorts were scanned by searching "total knee arthroplasty", "antibiotic-loaded cement", "antibiotic prophylaxis", "antibiotic-impregnated cement" and "antibiotic-laden cement" in the database of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Subgroup analysis included the effectiveness of different antibiotic types and doses in preventing SSI with ALBC. The modified Jadad scale was employed to score the qualities of included articles.ResultsEleven quantitative studies were enrolled, including 34,159 knees undergoing PTKA. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that the use of prophylactic ALBC could significantly reduce the prevalence of deep incisional SSI after PTKA, whereas there was no significant reduction in the rate of superficial incisional SSI. Moreover, gentamicin-loaded cement was effective in preventing deep incisional SSI, and the use of high-dose ALBC significantly reduced the rate of deep incisional SSI after PTKA. Besides, no significant adverse reactions and complications were stated during the use of ALBC in PTKA.ConclusionThe preventive application of ALBC during PTKA could reduce the rates of deep PJI. Furthermore, bone cement containing gentamicin and high-dose ALBC could even better prevent deep infection after PTKA. However, the existing related articles are mostly single-center and retrospective studies, and further high-quality ones are needed for confirmation.

Dataset Information

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

Publications

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets