[Choose oral over intravenous antibiotic therapy]. / Geef antibiotica bij voorkeur oraal.

Many physicians and patients hold the (unconscious) belief that intravenous antibiotic therapy is superior to oral therapy. This belief is also reflected in guidelines, where increasing severity of infection often leads to the recommendation of intravenous options only. But is this belief justified, and where does it come from? Treating with oral antibiotics has many potential advantages, such as fewer hospital admissions and the prevention of related complications. In this era of increasing demand for appropriate and efficient care, oral antibiotic treatment should replace intravenous treatment where possible. Here, we outline the crucial factors that should be considered when deciding between oral and intravenous treatment of infections: pharmacokinetics and dynamics, antibiotic resistance, and specific patient factors.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment of moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score matched study.

Community-acquired Pneumonia (CAP) guidelines generally recommend to admit patients with moderate-to-severe CAP and start treatment with intravenous antibiotics. This study aims to explore the clinical outcomes of oral antibiotics in patients with moderate-to-severe CAP. We performed a nested cohort study of an observational study including all adult patients presenting to the emergency department of the Haga Teaching Hospital, the Netherlands, between April 2019 and May 2020, who had a blood culture drawn. We conducted propensity score matching with logistic and linear regression analysis to compare patients with moderate-to-severe CAP (Pneumonia Severity Index class III-V) treated with oral antibiotics to patients treated with intravenous antibiotics. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, intensive care unit admission, readmission, length of stay (LOS) and length of antibiotic treatment. Of the original 314 patients, 71 orally treated patients were matched with 102 intravenously treated patients. The mean age was 73 years and 58% were male. We found no significant differences in outcomes between the oral and intravenous group, except for an increased LOS of + 2.6 days (95% confidence interval 1.2-4.0, p value < 0.001) in those treated intravenously. We conclude that oral antibiotics might be a safe and effective treatment for moderate-to-severe CAP for selected patients based on the clinical judgement of the attending physician.

Tailored anticoagulant treatment after a first venous thromboembolism: protocol of the Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prevention (L-TRRiP) study - cohort-based randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence. Recurrent VTE (rVTE) can be prevented by extended anticoagulant therapy, but this comes at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding. It is still uncertain whether patients with an intermediate recurrence risk or with a high recurrence and high bleeding risk will benefit from extended anticoagulant treatment, and whether a strategy where anticoagulant duration is tailored on the predicted risks of rVTE and bleeding can improve outcomes. The aim of the Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prevention (L-TRRiP) study is to evaluate the outcomes of tailored duration of long-term anticoagulant treatment based on individualised assessment of rVTE and major bleeding risks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The L-TRRiP study is a multicentre, open-label, cohort-based, randomised controlled trial, including patients with a first VTE. We classify the risk of rVTE and major bleeding using the L-TRRiP and VTE-BLEED scores, respectively. After 3 months of anticoagulant therapy, patients with a low rVTE risk will discontinue anticoagulant treatment, patients with a high rVTE and low bleeding risk will continue anticoagulant treatment, whereas all other patients will be randomised to continue or discontinue anticoagulant treatment. All patients will be followed up for at least 2 years. Inclusion will continue until the randomised group consists of 608 patients; we estimate to include 1600 patients in total. The primary outcome is the combined incidence of rVTE and major bleeding in the randomised group after 2 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of rVTE and major bleeding, functional outcomes, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in all patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft. Results are expected in 2028 and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and during (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06087952.

Evaluation of an integrated care pathway for out-of-hospital treatment of older adults with an acute moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection or pneumonia: protocol of a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with an acute moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) or pneumonia are generally treated in hospitals causing risk of iatrogenic harm such as functional decline and delirium. These hospitalisations are often a consequence of poor collaboration between regional care partners, the lack of (acute) diagnostic and treatment possibilities in primary care, and the presence of financial barriers. We will evaluate the implementation of an integrated regional care pathway ('The Hague RTI Care Bridge') developed with the aim to treat and coordinate care for these patients outside the hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective mixed methods study. Participants will be older adults (age≥65 years) with an acute moderate-to-severe LRTI or pneumonia treated outside the hospital (care pathway group) versus those treated in the hospital (control group). In addition, patients, their informal caregivers and treating physicians will be asked about their experiences with the care pathway. The primary outcome of this study will be the feasibility of the care pathway, which is defined as the percentage of patients treated outside the hospital, according to the care pathway, whom fully complete their treatment without the need for hospitalisation within 30 days of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the safety of the care pathway (30-day mortality and occurrence of complications (readmissions, delirium, falls) within 30 days); the satisfaction, usability and acceptance of the care pathway; the total number of days of bedridden status or hospitalisation; sleep quantity and quality; functional outcomes and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden The Hague Delft (reference number N22.078) has confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68786381.

Gadolinium retention after administration of contrast agents based on linear chelators and the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) earlier this year recommended to suspend some marketing authorisations for Gadolinium Containing Contrast Agents (GCCAs) based on linear chelators due to the potential risk of gadolinium retention in the human body. These recommendations have recently been re-evaluated by EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), and confirmed the final opinion of the European Medicines Agency. This editorial provides an overview of the available GCCAs and summarises the recent evidence of gadolinium retention. Moreover, a critical appraisal of the strengths and limitations of the scientific evidence currently available on gadolinium retention is given. KEY POINTS: • EMA recommended suspension of some EU marketing authorisations of four linear GCCAs. • Brain MRI findings indicating gadolinium retention have been confirmed by mass spectrometry. • Current scientific evidence for gadolinium retention has several methodological limitations. • No clear clinical evidence exists indicating that gadolinium retention causes neurotoxicity. • Long-term safety of GCCAs, however, remains unclear.