Endocarditis, invasive dental procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis efficacy in US Medicaid patients.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cohort and case-crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. RESULTS: The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40-52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62-119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, p < 0.0001). Case-crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65-5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18-21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high-risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

Bacteremia following different oral procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the timing, duration and incidence of bacteremia following invasive dental procedures (IDPs) or activities of daily living (ADL). Eight databases were searched for randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) evaluating bacteremia before and after IDPs or ADL in healthy individuals. The risk of bias was assessed by RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. For the meta-analysis, the primary outcomes were the timing and duration of bacteremia. The secondary outcome was the incidence of bacteremia, measuring the proportion of patients with bacteremia within 5 min after the end of the procedure compared with baseline. We included 64 nRCTs and 25 RCTs. Peak bacteremia occurred within 5 min after the procedure and then decreased over time. Dental extractions showed the highest incidence of bacteremia (62%-66%), followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) (44%-36%) and oral health procedures (OHP) (e.g., dental prophylaxis and dental probing without SRP) (27%-28%). Other ADL (flossing and chewing) (16%) and toothbrushing (8%-26%) resulted in bacteremia as well. The majority of studies had some concerns RCTs or moderate risk of bias nRCTs. Dental extractions, SRP and OHP, are associated with the highest frequency of bacteremia. Toothbrushing, flossing, and chewing also caused bacteremia in lower frequency.

Prevention of Viridans Group Streptococcal Infective Endocarditis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the American Heart Association published updated evidence-based guidelines on the recommended use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent viridans group streptococcal (VGS) infective endocarditis (IE) in cardiac patients undergoing invasive procedures. The 2007 guidelines significantly scaled back the underlying conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended, leaving only 4 categories thought to confer the highest risk of adverse outcome. The purpose of this update is to examine interval evidence of the acceptance and impact of the 2007 recommendations on VGS IE and, if needed, to make revisions based on this evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: A writing group was formed consisting of experts in prevention and treatment of infective endocarditis including members of the American Dental Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in addition to the American Heart Association. MEDLINE database searches were done for English language articles on compliance with the recommendations in the 2007 guidelines and the frequency of and morbidity or mortality from VGS IE after publication of the 2007 guidelines. Overall, there was good general awareness of the 2007 guidelines but variable compliance with recommendations. There was no convincing evidence that VGS IE frequency, morbidity, or mortality has increased since 2007. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a review of the available evidence, there are no recommended changes to the 2007 VGS IE prevention guidelines. We continue to recommend VGS IE prophylaxis only for categories of patients at highest risk for adverse outcome while emphasizing the critical role of good oral health and regular access to dental care for all. Randomized controlled studies to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective against VGS IE are needed to further refine recommendations.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Prosthetic Joint Patients Undergoing Invasive Dental Procedures: Time for a Rethink?

BACKGROUND: In the United States, it has been common practice to recommend that dentists provide antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent late periprosthetic joint infections (LPJIs) in patients who have prosthetic arthroplasties despite lack of evidence for a causal relationship between IDP and LPJI and a lack of evidence for AP efficacy. METHODS: A recent study quantified the IDP incidence over the 15-month period prior to LPJI hospital admissions in the United Kingdom for which dental records were available. A case-crossover analysis compared IDP incidence in the 3 months before LPJI admission with the preceding 12 months. The English population was used because guidelines do not recommend AP and any relationship between IDPs and LPJI should be fully exposed. RESULTS: No significant positive association was identified between IDPs and LPJI. Indeed, the incidence of IDPs was lower in the 3 months before LPJI hospital admission than that in the preceding 12 months. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a significant positive association between IDPs and LPJI, there is no rationale to administer AP before IDPs in patients with prosthetic joints, particularly given the cost and inconvenience of AP, the risk of adverse drug reactions, and the potential for unnecessary AP use that promotes antibiotic resistance. These results should reassure orthopedic surgeons and their patients that dental care of patients who have prosthetic joints should focus on maintaining good oral hygiene rather than on recommending AP for IDPs. Moreover, it should also reassure those in other countries where AP is not recommended that such guidance is sufficient.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: What participants perceive as important.

Our objective was to identify which aspects of World Workshop on Oral Medicine (WWOM) participation were perceived as significant for participants' professional development. Online survey was sent to previous WWOM participants. Qualitative analysis of participants' responses to an open-ended question was performed. Fifty-two WWOM participants responded. Nearly three quarters of respondents (72.3%) felt that participation in the WWOM helped their career. A high percentage of respondents (67.3%) provided answers that fell under the domains of international collaboration, followed by personal academic benefits (48%). Overall, the results indicate that WWOM participation played an important role in individual's professional development. We identified aspects of WWOM involvement that the participants perceived as important. This information will be used for the development of an objective instrument for measuring impact of WWOM on participant's professional path.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Platelet count and platelet transfusion for invasive dental procedures in thrombocytopenic patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for a 50,000/µl platelet count threshold for platelet transfusion for invasive dental procedures in thrombocytopenic patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (Wiley) and Scopus from 1960 through April 2018 for studies on patients with quantitative platelet disorders not related to medical co-morbidities or medications and undergoing invasive dental procedures. Two reviewers conducted assessments independently. RESULTS: We found a total of 176 non-duplicate articles, of which 9 cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. The incidence of postoperative bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients was low (4.9%), and we found no difference in bleeding incidence between patients who had platelet transfusion and those who did not. There was no difference in the mean platelet count for patients with and without bleeding. Different modalities are now available to prevent and control bleeding, which may reduce the need for platelet transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the long-standing dogma of a need for a platelet count ≥ 50,000/µl for safe invasive dental procedures. Platelet transfusion effectiveness for haemostasis support could not be determined based on available data. Local measures and antifibrinolytics are the mainstay for the prevention and management of bleeding.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Non-opioid pain management of head and neck chemo/radiation-induced mucositis: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of non-opioid interventions for the therapeutic management of pain in head and neck cancer patients with oral mucositis resulting from radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted which included randomised controlled trials that assessed patient-related outcome of pain in patients with oral mucositis associated with radiation therapy only or chemoradiotherapy. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE via Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL. RESULTS: The electronic searches identified 846 articles. Screening revealed that six articles met all eligibility inclusion criteria. Interventions showing statistically significant benefits to reduce oral mucositis associated pain compared to placebo included doxepin (p < 0.001, 95% CI -6.7 to -2.1), amitriptyline (p = 0.04), diclofenac (p < 0.01) and benzydamine (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Non-opioid interventions, including topical doxepin, amitriptyline, diclofenac and benzydamine, were found to provide relief of pain due to mucositis, and when effective may allow for reduction in the use of opioids in pain management.

World workshop on oral medicine VII: Direct anticoagulant agents management for invasive oral procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current literature regarding the importance of discontinuing or not discontinuing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) before invasive oral procedures, and to establish the frequency and type of postoperative bleeding events in patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up until November 5, 2018. Selection of the studies, extraction of data, qualitative, and bias assessment was performed independently by two authors. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. No randomized controlled studies were identified. Six studies reported a direct comparison between patients taking DOACs and those who discontinued DOACs. The meta-analysis of these studies resulted in an OR of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.37-2.27, I2  = 9%) for postoperative bleeding events for patients taking DOACs. We found that 59/497 (11.8%) postoperative bleeding events occurred in patients who continued DOACs, while 27/200 (13.5%) events were reported for patients who discontinued treatment. All postoperative bleeding events were controlled with local measures. CONCLUSION: Results from the included studies did not discern any important differences in postoperative bleeding events in patients who continued versus patients who discontinued DOACs. Furthermore, no thromboembolic events were recorded. However, the low quality of the studies must be considered.

Quantifying infective endocarditis risk in patients with predisposing cardiac conditions.

Aims: There are scant comparative data quantifying the risk of infective endocarditis (IE) and associated mortality in individuals with predisposing cardiac conditions. Methods and results: English hospital admissions for conditions associated with increased IE risk were followed for 5 years to quantify subsequent IE admissions. The 5-year risk of IE or dying during an IE admission was calculated for each condition and compared with the entire English population as a control. Infective endocarditis incidence in the English population was 36.2/million/year. In comparison, patients with a previous history of IE had the highest risk of recurrence or dying during an IE admission [odds ratio (OR) 266 and 215, respectively]. These risks were also high in patients with prosthetic valves (OR 70 and 62) and previous valve repair (OR 77 and 60). Patients with congenital valve anomalies (currently considered 'moderate risk') had similar levels of risk (OR 66 and 57) and risks in other 'moderate-risk' conditions were not much lower. Congenital heart conditions (CHCs) repaired with prosthetic material (currently considered 'high risk' for 6 months following surgery) had lower risk than all 'moderate-risk' conditions-even in the first 6 months. Infective endocarditis risk was also significant in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Conclusion: These data confirm the high IE risk of patients with a history of previous IE, valve replacement, or repair. However, IE risk in some 'moderate-risk' patients was similar to that of several 'high-risk' conditions and higher than repaired CHC. Guidelines for the risk stratification of conditions predisposing to IE may require re-evaluation.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Patients at Risk of Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: In March 2008, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended stopping antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for those at risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing dental procedures in the United Kingdom, citing a lack of evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We have performed a new economic evaluation of AP on the basis of contemporary estimates of efficacy, adverse events, and resource implications. METHODS: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was used. Health service costs and benefits (measured as quality-adjusted life-years) were estimated. Rates of IE before and after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance were available to estimate prophylactic efficacy. AP adverse event rates were derived from recent UK data, and resource implications were based on English Hospital Episode Statistics. RESULTS: AP was less costly and more effective than no AP for all patients at risk of IE. The results are sensitive to AP efficacy, but efficacy would have to be substantially lower for AP not to be cost-effective. AP was even more cost-effective in patients at high risk of IE. Only a marginal reduction in annual IE rates (1.44 cases in high-risk and 33 cases in all at-risk patients) would be required for AP to be considered cost-effective at £20 000 ($26 600) per quality-adjusted life-year. Annual cost savings of £5.5 to £8.2 million ($7.3-$10.9 million) and health gains >2600 quality-adjusted life-years could be achieved from reinstating AP in England. CONCLUSIONS: AP is cost-effective for preventing IE, particularly in those at high risk. These findings support the cost-effectiveness of guidelines recommending AP use in high-risk individuals.

Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Complications: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a potentially lethal disease that has undergone major changes in both host and pathogen. The epidemiology of infective endocarditis has become more complex with today's myriad healthcare-associated factors that predispose to infection. Moreover, changes in pathogen prevalence, in particular a more common staphylococcal origin, have affected outcomes, which have not improved despite medical and surgical advances. METHODS AND RESULTS: This statement updates the 2005 iteration, both of which were developed by the American Heart Association under the auspices of the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease of the Young. It includes an evidence-based system for diagnostic and treatment recommendations used by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association for treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Infective endocarditis is a complex disease, and patients with this disease generally require management by a team of physicians and allied health providers with a variety of areas of expertise. The recommendations provided in this document are intended to assist in the management of this uncommon but potentially deadly infection. The clinical variability and complexity in infective endocarditis, however, dictate that these recommendations be used to support and not supplant decisions in individual patient management.

Incidence of infective endocarditis in England, 2000-13: a secular trend, interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis given before invasive dental procedures in patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis has historically been the focus of infective endocarditis prevention. Recent changes in antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in the USA and Europe have substantially reduced the number of patients for whom antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. In the UK, guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended complete cessation of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of infective endocarditis in March, 2008. We aimed to investigate changes in the prescribing of antibiotic prophylaxis and the incidence of infective endocarditis since the introduction of these guidelines. METHODS: We did a retrospective secular trend study, analysed as an interrupted time series, to investigate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis on the incidence of infective endocarditis in England. We analysed data for the prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis from Jan 1, 2004, to March 31, 2013, and hospital discharge episode statistics for patients with a primary diagnosis of infective endocarditis from Jan 1, 2000, to March 31, 2013. We compared the incidence of infective endocarditis before and after the introduction of the NICE guidelines using segmented regression analysis of the interrupted time series. FINDINGS: Prescriptions of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis fell substantially after introduction of the NICE guidance (mean 10,900 prescriptions per month [Jan 1, 2004, to March 31, 2008] vs 2236 prescriptions per month [April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2013], p<0·0001). Starting in March, 2008, the number of cases of infective endocarditis increased significantly above the projected historical trend, by 0·11 cases per 10 million people per month (95% CI 0·05-0·16, p<0·0001). By March, 2013, 35 more cases per month were reported than would have been expected had the previous trend continued. This increase in the incidence of infective endocarditis was significant for both individuals at high risk of infective endocarditis and those at lower risk. INTERPRETATION: Although our data do not establish a causal association, prescriptions of antibiotic prophylaxis have fallen substantially and the incidence of infective endocarditis has increased significantly in England since introduction of the 2008 NICE guidelines. FUNDING: Heart Research UK, Simplyhealth, and US National Institutes of Health.

Incidence and nature of adverse reactions to antibiotics used as endocarditis prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) administration prior to invasive dental procedures has been a leading focus of infective endocarditis prevention. However, there have been long-standing concerns about the risk of adverse drug reactions as a result of this practice. The objective of this study was to identify the incidence and nature of adverse reactions to amoxicillin and clindamycin prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis. METHODS: We obtained AP prescribing data for England from January 2004 to March 2014 from the NHS Business Services Authority, and adverse drug reaction data from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's Yellow Card reporting scheme for prescriptions of the standard AP protocol of a single 3 g oral dose of amoxicillin or a single 600 mg oral dose of clindamycin for those allergic to penicillin. RESULTS: The reported adverse drug reaction rate for amoxicillin AP was 0 fatal reactions/million prescriptions (in fact 0 fatal reactions for nearly 3 million prescriptions) and 22.62 non-fatal reactions/million prescriptions. For clindamycin, it was 13 fatal and 149 non-fatal reactions/million prescriptions. Most clindamycin adverse drug reactions were Clostridium difficile infections. CONCLUSIONS: AP adverse drug reaction reporting rates in England were low, particularly for amoxicillin, and lower than previous estimates. This suggests that amoxicillin AP is comparatively safe for patients without a history of amoxicillin allergy. The use of clindamycin AP was, however, associated with significant rates of fatal and non-fatal adverse drug reactions associated with C. difficile infections. These were higher than expected and similar to those for other doses, durations and routes of clindamycin administration.

Evaluation of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy to promote antimicrobial stewardship in dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the US population self-reports a penicillin allergy history or are labeled as penicillin allergic. However, from 90% through 99% of these patients are not allergic on formal evaluation. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients labeled as penicillin allergic receive broader-spectrum and sometimes less-effective antibiotics, thereby contributing to increased treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and adverse drug reactions. Self-reported penicillin allergy can be eliminated or classified as low-, medium-, or high-risk after a careful review of patient history. This allows these patients to be delabeled; that is, having any reference to their penicillin allergy history or of having an allergy to penicillin eliminated from their health records. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Oral health care professionals are ideally placed to partner in both antibiotic stewardship interventions by means of recognizing pervasive mislabeling and aiding in the process of delabeling.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Infective Endocarditis Incidence Following Invasive Dental Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures is still unclear. Indications for antibiotic prophylaxis were restricted by guidelines beginning in 2007. Objective: To systematically review and analyze existing evidence on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, Embase, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 2023. Study Selection: Studies on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures or time-trend analyses of infective endocarditis incidence before and after current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study quality was evaluated using structured tools. Data were extracted by independent observers. A pooled relative risk (RR) of developing infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals who were receiving antibiotic prophylaxis vs those who were not was computed by random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was the incidence of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in relation to antibiotic prophylaxis. Results: Of 11 217 records identified, 30 were included (1 152 345 infective endocarditis cases). Of them, 8 (including 12 substudies) were either case-control/crossover or cohort studies or self-controlled case series, while 22 were time-trend studies; all were of good quality. Eight of the 12 substudies with case-control/crossover, cohort, or self-controlled case series designs performed a formal statistical analysis; 5 supported a protective role of antibiotic prophylaxis, especially among individuals at high risk, while 3 did not. By meta-analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk (pooled RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; P for heterogeneity = .51; I2, 0%). Nineteen of the 22 time-trend studies performed a formal pre-post statistical analysis; 9 found no significant changes in infective endocarditis incidence, 7 demonstrated a significant increase for the overall population or subpopulations (individuals at high and moderate risk, streptococcus-infective endocarditis, and viridans group streptococci-infective endocarditis), whereas 3 found a significant decrease for the overall population and among oral streptococcus-infective endocarditis. Conclusions and Relevance: While results from time-trend studies were inconsistent, data from case-control/crossover, cohort, and self-controlled case series studies showed that use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced risk of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk, while no association was proven for those at low/unknown risk, thereby supporting current American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology recommendations. Currently, there is insufficient data to support any benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in individuals at moderate risk.

Periodontal disease and atherosclerotic vascular disease: does the evidence support an independent association?: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

A link between oral health and cardiovascular disease has been proposed for more than a century. Recently, concern about possible links between periodontal disease (PD) and atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD) has intensified and is driving an active field of investigation into possible association and causality. The 2 disorders share several common risk factors, including cigarette smoking, age, and diabetes mellitus. Patients and providers are increasingly presented with claims that PD treatment strategies offer ASVD protection; these claims are often endorsed by professional and industrial stakeholders. The focus of this review is to assess whether available data support an independent association between ASVD and PD and whether PD treatment might modify ASVD risks or outcomes. It also presents mechanistic details of both PD and ASVD relevant to this topic. The correlation of PD with ASVD outcomes and surrogate markers is discussed, as well as the correlation of response to PD therapy with ASVD event rates. Methodological issues that complicate studies of this association are outlined, with an emphasis on the terms and metrics that would be applicable in future studies. Observational studies to date support an association between PD and ASVD independent of known confounders. They do not, however, support a causative relationship. Although periodontal interventions result in a reduction in systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in short-term studies, there is no evidence that they prevent ASVD or modify its outcomes.

Oral microbiomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE): a comparative pilot study of IE patients, patients at risk for IE and healthy controls.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is an uncommon disease with high morbidity and mortality rates, which often develops from oral bacterial species entering circulation. Objective: We compared oral microbiome profiles of three groups: IE patients (N  9 patients; n = 27 samples), disease controls at risk for IE (N = 28; n = 84), and healthy controls (N = 37; n = 111). Bacterial species in IE patients' blood cultures were identified for comparison with matched oral samples. Design: Oral microbiome profiles were obtained from buccal mucosa, saliva, and tongue samples for all three groups and from sub- and supra-gingival plaque samples of the IE group (N = 9; n = 16) and disease controls (N = 28; n = 54). Alpha- and beta-diversities were determined based on relative abundance data. Discriminative species were identified by LEfSe, post hoc Mann-Whitney, and ROC analyses. Identity of the bacterial species in IE patients' blood cultures was confirmed by 16S-rRNA gene Sanger sequencing. Results: Alpha- and beta-diversities differed between groups. Discriminative IE-associated species were identified, e.g. Haemophilus parainfluenzae and Streptococcus sanguinis. Two blood isolates were Staphylococcus aureus, also identified in one matched saliva sample. Streptococcus mutans was present in one patient's plaque samples and blood culture. Conclusions: Oral microbiomes of IE, non-IE disease controls, and healthy controls differed significantly. A better understanding of IE-related bacterial-host interactions is warranted.