Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

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 .).

How to: assess patient suitability for unlicensed phage therapy in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Bacteriophage (phage) therapy is a promising alternative antimicrobial approach that has the potential to transform the way we treat bacterial infections. The antibiotic resistance crisis is driving renewed interest in phage therapy. There are currently no licensed phage therapy medicinal products and phage therapy is used in small but growing patient numbers on an unlicensed basis. OBJECTIVES: This article provides guidelines on the assessment of patient suitability for unlicensed phage therapy for clinicians in the United Kingdom. SOURCES: This article builds on Health Improvement Scotland's recommendation for the consideration of phage therapy in difficult-to-treat infections and the experience of the author group, who have collectively assessed the suitability of 30 patients for phage therapy. CONTENT: In the United Kingdom, unlicenced medicines, including phages, may be considered to meet special clinical needs. The use of unlicenced medicines is governed by national legislation and local National Health Service trust policies. Phages can be used in any National Health Service trust and decisions about suitability should be made through existing local clinical management pathways. This article sets out guidelines to support local clinical teams in the assessment of patient suitability for phage therapy. Clinical and microbiological considerations are presented, including allergy and pregnancy. IMPLICATIONS: The assessment of patient suitability for phage therapy is within the scope of local clinical teams. Local assessment through existing clinical management pathways will develop confidence and competence in phage therapy among clinical teams nationally and ensure timely patient care.

Comparison of Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) following the administration of intravenous lignocaine and fentanyl in patients undergoing septoplasty under general anaesthesia: A double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial.

Background and Aims: Recovery from surgery and anaesthesia is usually observed through conventional indicators. The Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score was specially designed to measure psychometric and functional recovery from the patient's perspective. This study aimed to evaluate QoR-15 following the administration of intravenous (IV) lignocaine or IV fentanyl in patients undergoing septoplasty surgery. Methods: This randomised, controlled trial was conducted on 64 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, of either sex, of ages between 18 and 60 years, and who were scheduled for septoplasty. The primary end point was to compare the quality of recovery following the administration of IV lignocaine(group L) and IV fentanyl (group F) using the QoR-15 score in patients undergoing septoplasty. Secondary end points were to compare postoperative analgesia, recovery characteristics, and adverse effects in both groups. Statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk test, paired t test/ Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and unpaired t test/Mann-Whitney U test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was a significant improvement in the postoperative QoR-15 score than in the preoperative score in both groups (P < 0.000). However, the postoperative QoR-15 score was significantly higher in group L compared to group F (P < 0.001). Total consumption of analgesic doses were reduced in group L (P=0.000). Time taken to achieve an Aldrete score >9 and gastrointestinal recovery was shorter in group L compared to group F. Conclusion: Both IV lignocaine and IV fentanyl improved postoperative QoR-15 score; however, lignocaine had a higher postoperative QoR-15 score than fentanyl, in addition to showing early discharge readiness, better analgesia, and better recovery profile in patients following septoplasty surgery.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4-6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. SETTING: Twenty-six NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. RESULTS: Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was -1.38% (90% confidence interval -4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. LIMITATIONS: The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. FUTURE WORK: Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment of bone and joint infection usually requires a long course of antibiotics. Doctors usually give these by injection through a vein (intravenously) for the first 4­6 weeks, rather than by mouth (orally). Although intravenous (IV) administration is more expensive and less convenient for patients, most doctors believe that it is more effective. However, there is little evidence to support this. The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial set out to challenge this assumption. A total of 1054 patients from 26 UK hospitals were randomly allocated to receive the first 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy either intravenously or orally. Irrespective of the route of administration, the choice of antibiotic was left to an infection specialist so as to ensure that the most appropriate antibiotics were given. Patients were followed up for 1 year. Thirty-nine participants were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining 1015 participants, treatment failure occurred in 14.6% of those treated intravenously and 13.2% of those treated with PO antibiotics. This difference could easily have occurred by chance. Even if it was not by chance, the difference does not suggest that PO therapy is associated with worse outcomes than IV therapy and is too small to conclude that PO therapy is better than IV therapy. Participants in the IV group stayed in hospital longer and 10% of them had complications related to the IV line used for administering the antibiotics. In addition, their treatment was, overall, more expensive. We conclude that PO antibiotic therapy has no disadvantages for the early management of bone and joint infection. It is also cheaper and associated with fewer complications.

Design of a 'day 3 bundle' to improve the reassessment of inpatient empirical antibiotic prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a set of process measures of quality of care in the reassessment of inpatient empirical antibiotic prescriptions, to determine the inter-rater reliability of medical notes' review in assessment of these measures and to test these measures on one ward. METHODS: Measures of process of care were identified from a literature review. Forty sets of medical notes were reviewed by two independent doctors and the inter-rater reliability determined using observed percentage agreement and the kappa statistic. These measures were collected weekly and fed back to doctors in order to stimulate improvement. RESULTS: Four process measures were identified and were grouped together to create a 'day 3 bundle': antibiotic plan, review of the diagnosis, adaptation to microbiology and intravenous-oral switch. The inter-rater agreement was > or = 80% for all measures. Data collection was feasible and was easily sustained over several weeks. The reassessment of antibiotic prescriptions around day 3 was better documented using real-time feedback of the measures to the medical team. CONCLUSIONS: Our measures of care are suitable for the reassessment of empirical inpatient antibiotic prescriptions, with good inter-rater reliability. This quality intervention should be part of a more comprehensive and multifaceted plan to improve antibiotic use in hospitals.

Evidence for onward transmission of HIV-1 non-B subtype strains in the United Kingdom.

An increasing proportion of new HIV diagnoses in the United Kingdom and other European countries are attributable to non-B subtype infections, mainly among black Africans with infections heterosexually acquired in sub-Saharan Africa. We examined whether there was evidence for onward transmission of non-B subtypes within an ethnically diverse HIV-1-infected cohort in South London. Three hundred eighty-four HIV-1-infected patients attending Kings College Hospital were subtyped using an in-house enzyme-linked immunoassay and env sequencing. Epidemiologic data were obtained from medical chart review and the patients' physician and were used to establish the most likely source and country of infection. Overall, 344 patients (154 black African, 148 white UK-born, and 42 black Caribbean) had an identifiable subtype. The prevalence of non-B subtypes among the black African, white, and black Caribbean patients was 96.8%, 14.2%, and 31%, respectively. Most non-B subtype infections were identified in black Africans (149 of 183 cases) and were mainly acquired in sub-Saharan Africa, but 22.9% (42 of 183 cases) of all non-B infections were probably acquired in the United Kingdom. Among the 21 white UK-born patients infected with a non-B subtype, 15 probably acquired the infection in the United Kingdom and only 6 of these patients reported a source sexual partner from an HIV endemic area. All 13 black Caribbean patients with a non-B infection most likely acquired their infection in the United Kingdom, most of whom (8 of 13 patients) were probably infected by a partner from an HIV endemic area. Potential acquisition of HIV infection in the United Kingdom was lowest among black African patients with a non-B infection, and most of these infections were probably acquired from a partner originating from an HIV endemic area. This study provides the first evidence for onward transmission of non-B subtypes in the United Kingdom, particularly among the black Caribbean population.