对粪肠球菌血流感染的序贯口服抗生素治疗与静脉注射抗生素治疗进行评估。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Annals of Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1177/10600280241260146
Carly Loudermilk, Joshua Eudy, Stephanie Albrecht, Cara N Slaton, Stefanie Stramel, Patrick Tu, Benjamin Albrecht, Sarah B Green, Jeannette L Bouchard, Alison I Orvin, Christian F Caveness, Andrea Sikora Newsome, Christopher M Bland, Daniel T Anderson
{"title":"对粪肠球菌血流感染的序贯口服抗生素治疗与静脉注射抗生素治疗进行评估。","authors":"Carly Loudermilk, Joshua Eudy, Stephanie Albrecht, Cara N Slaton, Stefanie Stramel, Patrick Tu, Benjamin Albrecht, Sarah B Green, Jeannette L Bouchard, Alison I Orvin, Christian F Caveness, Andrea Sikora Newsome, Christopher M Bland, Daniel T Anderson","doi":"10.1177/10600280241260146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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 <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i>.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare outcomes of definitive sequential PO therapy to definitive IV therapy in patients with <i>E faecalis</i> BSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study of adult patients with at least one blood culture positive for <i>E faecalis</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Sequential oral therapy for <i>E faecalis</i> BSI had similar outcomes compared to IV-only treatment and may be considered in eligible patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7933,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"127-133"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Sequential Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment of <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i> Bloodstream Infections.\",\"authors\":\"Carly Loudermilk, Joshua Eudy, Stephanie Albrecht, Cara N Slaton, Stefanie Stramel, Patrick Tu, Benjamin Albrecht, Sarah B Green, Jeannette L Bouchard, Alison I Orvin, Christian F Caveness, Andrea Sikora Newsome, Christopher M Bland, Daniel T Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10600280241260146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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 <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i>.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare outcomes of definitive sequential PO therapy to definitive IV therapy in patients with <i>E faecalis</i> BSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study of adult patients with at least one blood culture positive for <i>E faecalis</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Sequential oral therapy for <i>E faecalis</i> BSI had similar outcomes compared to IV-only treatment and may be considered in eligible patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Pharmacotherapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"127-133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Pharmacotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241260146\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241260146","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:静脉注射抗生素历来被视为治疗血流感染(BSI)的标准疗法。最近的文献显示,对于某些病原体和疾病状态,序贯口服 (PO) 疗法并不优于静脉注射抗生素。然而,对于由粪肠球菌引起的 BSI,相关文献还存在空白:目的:比较对粪肠球菌 BSI 患者进行明确的序贯 PO 治疗和明确的静脉注射治疗的结果:多中心、回顾性、匹配队列研究,对象为 2017 年 1 月至 2022 年 11 月期间至少有一次粪肠球菌血培养呈阳性的成年患者。排除了多微生物 BSI 患者、需要长期静脉注射抗生素治疗的并发感染患者、未接受抗生素治疗的患者以及在指数培养 72 小时内死亡的患者。受试者根据感染源以 2:1 的比例(静脉注射:口服)进行配对。主要结果是全因死亡率和治疗失败的综合结果。次要结果包括住院时间(LOS)、抗生素持续时间和 30 天再入院率:结果:在符合纳入标准的 186 名患者中,与静脉注射疗法(14.5% vs 21.8%;OR 0.53 [0.23-1.25])或 30 天再入院率(17.5% vs 29%;OR 0.53 [0.25-1.13])相比,口服药物疗法与静脉注射疗法的主要综合结果无显著统计学差异。仅接受静脉注射治疗的患者住院时间明显更长(6 天 vs 14 天;P < 0.001):结论与意义:与单纯静脉注射治疗相比,粪大肠杆菌 BSI 的序贯口服治疗具有相似的效果,符合条件的患者可以考虑使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Pharmacotherapy (AOP) is a peer-reviewed journal that advances pharmacotherapy throughout the world by publishing high-quality research and review articles to achieve the most desired health outcomes.The articles provide cutting-edge information about the most efficient, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapy for the treatment and prevention of various illnesses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 14 days
期刊最新文献
Outcome of Drug-Induced Parkinsonism in the Elderly: A Permanent Nonprogressive Parkinsonian Syndrome May Occur Following Discontinuation of Cinnarizine and Flunarizine. Review of Subcutaneous Insulin Regimens in the Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Adults and Pediatrics. Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors and the Risk of Genitourinary Infections at HbA1c ≥10%: A Population Health-Based Retrospective Review. Effect of Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura Medications on Depression Risk: An Analysis of NHANES Data. Therapeutic Enoxaparin Dosing in Obesity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1