Revisiting the Evidence Base Informing the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Current guidelines recommend adjunctive gentamicin for the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) despite a risk of toxicity. We sought to revisit the evidence for adjunctive therapy in EFIE and to synthesize the comparative safety and effectiveness of adjunctive use of the aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone by systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods: For historical context, we reviewed the seminal case series and in vitro studies informing the evolution from penicillin monotherapy to modern-day regimens for EFIE. Next, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to January 16, 2024 for studies of EFIE comparing 1) adjunctive aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone or 2) adjunctive therapy versus monotherapy. Where possible, clinical outcomes were compared between regimens by random-effects meta-analysis. Otherwise, data were narratively summarized.
Results: Results for the systematic review and meta-analysis were limited to 10 observational studies totaling 911 patients. All studies were at high risk of bias. Relative to adjunctive ceftriaxone, gentamicin had similar all-cause mortality (Risk Difference [RD]=-0.8%, 95% Confidence interval [95%CI]=-5.0, 3.5), relapse (RD=-0.1%, 95%CI=-2.4, 2.3), and treatment failure (RD=1.1%, 95%CI=-1.6, 3.7), but higher discontinuation due to toxicity (RD=26.3%, 95%CI=19.8, 32.7). The 3 studies comparing adjunctive therapy to monotherapy included only 30 monotherapy patients and heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.
Conclusion: Adjunctive therapy with ceftriaxone appeared to be equally effective and less toxic than gentamicin for the treatment of EFIE. The existing evidence does not clearly establish the superiority of either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Pending randomized evidence, if adjunctive therapy is to be used, ceftriaxone appears to be a reasonable option.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)