Search

Your search keyword '"Oral antibiotic therapy"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Descriptor "Oral antibiotic therapy" Journal open forum infectious diseases
2 results on '"Oral antibiotic therapy"'

1. Variation in North American Infectious Disease Specialists' Practice Regarding Oral and Suppressive Antibiotics for Adult Osteoarticular Infections: Results of an Emerging Infections Network (EIN) Survey.

Author

Cortés-Penfield, Nicolás, Beekmann, Susan E, Polgreen, Philip M, Ryan, Keenan, Marschall, Jonas, and Sekar, Poorani

Subjects
*EMERGING infectious diseases, *PROSTHESIS-related infections, *COMMUNICABLE diseases, *JOINT infections, *INFECTIOUS arthritis, *ANTIBIOTICS, *DIABETIC foot
Abstract

Background Osteoarticular infections (OAIs) are commonly treated with prolonged intravenous (IV) antimicrobials. The Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection (OVIVA) trial demonstrated that oral (PO) antibiotics are noninferior to IV antibiotics in the treatment of OAIs. We surveyed infectious disease (ID) physicians about their use of PO antibiotics in the treatment of OAIs. Methods An Emerging Infection Network survey with 9 questions regarding antibiotic prescribing for the treatment of OAIs was sent to 1475 North American ID physicians. The questions were mostly multiple choice and focused on the use of definitive oral antibiotic therapy (defined as oral switch within 2 weeks of starting antibiotics) and chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT). Results Of the 413 physicians who reported treating OAIs, 91% used oral antibiotics at least sometimes and 31% used them as definitive therapy, most often for diabetic foot osteomyelitis and native joint septic arthritis. The oral antibiotics most frequently used for OAIs included trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline/minocycline, and linezolid for Staphylococcus aureus , amoxicillin/cefadroxil/cephalexin for streptococci, and fluoroquinolones for gram-negative organisms. The most common rationales for not transitioning to oral antibiotics included nonsusceptible pathogens, comorbidities preventing therapeutic drug levels, and concerns about adherence. SAT use was variable but employed by a majority in most cases of periprosthetic joint infection managed with debridement and implant retention. Conclusions North American ID physicians utilize oral antibiotics and SAT for the management of OAIs, although significant practice variation exists. Respondents voiced a need for updated guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. 289. Impact of Clinician Specialty on the Use of Oral Antibiotic Therapy for Definitive Treatment of Uncomplicated Bloodstream Infections

Author

Jihyun Ma, Scott Bergman, Jasmine R Marcelin, Mackenzie R Keintz, Trevor C. Van Schooneveld, Bryan T. Alexander, and Erica J Stohs

Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Specialty, medicine.disease, Institutional review board, Pneumonia, Infectious Diseases, AcademicSubjects/MED00290, Oncology, Bacteremia, Oral antibiotic therapy, Poster Abstracts, Medicine, Blood culture, business, Abscess, Intensive care medicine, Meningitis
Abstract

Background No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat uncomplicated bloodstream infections (uBSIs) and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience. Methods An IRB-exempt web-based survey was emailed to Nebraska Medicine clinicians caring for hospitalized patients, and widely disseminated using social media. The survey was open access and once disseminated on social media, it was impossible to ascertain the total number of individuals who received the survey. Chi-squared analysis for categorical data was conducted to evaluate the association between responses and demographic groups. Results Of 275 survey responses, 51% were via social media, and 94% originated in the United States. Two-thirds of respondents were physicians, 16% pharmacists, and infectious diseases clinicians (IDC) represented 71% of respondents. The syndromes where most were comfortable using OAT routinely for uBSI were urinary tract infection (92%), pneumonia (82%), pyelonephritis (82%), and skin/soft tissue infections (69%). IDC were more comfortable routinely using OAT to treat uBSIs associated with vertebral osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infections than non-infectious diseases clinicians (NIDC), but NIDC were more likely to report comfort with routine use of OAT to treat uBSIs associated with meningitis and skin/soft tissue infections. IDC were more likely to report comfort with routine use of OAT for uBSIs due to Enterobacteriaceae and gram-positive anaerobes, while NIDC were more likely to be comfortable with routinely using OAT to treat uBSIs associated with S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and gram-positive bacilli. In one clinical vignette of S. aureus uBSI due to debrided abscess, 11% of IDC would be comfortable using OAT vs 28% of NIDC; IDC were more likely to report routinely repeating blood cultures (99% vs 83%, p< 0.05). Figure 1: Clinician comfort using oral antibiotic therapy to treat uncomplicated bacteremia due to specific syndromes Figure 2: Clinician comfort using oral antibiotic therapy to treat uncomplicated bacteremia due to specific organisms Conclusion Considerable variation in comfort using OAT for uBSIs among IDC vs NIDC exists, highlighting opportunities for IDC to continue to demonstrate their value in clinical practice. Understanding the reasons for variability may be helpful in creating best practice guidelines to standardize decision making. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Published
2020

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results