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 .).

A prospective surveillance study to determine the prevalence of 16S rRNA methyltransferase-producing Gram-negative bacteria in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of 16S rRNA methyltransferase- (16S RMTase-) producing Gram-negative bacteria in patients in the UK and to identify potential risk factors for their acquisition. METHODS: A 6 month prospective surveillance study was conducted from 1 May to 31 October 2016, wherein 14 hospital laboratories submitted Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates that displayed high-level amikacin resistance according to their testing methods, e.g. no zone of inhibition with amikacin discs. Isolates were linked to patient travel history, medical care abroad, and previous antibiotic exposure using a surveillance questionnaire. In the reference laboratory, isolates confirmed to grow on Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with 256 mg/L amikacin were screened by PCR for 16S RMTase genes armA, rmtA-rmtH and npmA, and carbapenemase genes (blaKPC, blaNDM, blaOXA-48-like and blaVIM). STs and total antibiotic resistance gene complement were determined via WGS. Prevalence was determined using denominators for each bacterial species provided by participating hospital laboratories. RESULTS: Eighty-four isolates (44.7%), among 188 submitted isolates, exhibited high-level amikacin resistance (MIC >256 mg/L), and 79 (94.0%) of these harboured 16S RMTase genes. armA (54.4%, 43/79) was the most common, followed by rmtB (17.7%, 14/79), rmtF (13.9%, 11/79), rmtC (12.7%, 10/79) and armA + rmtF (1.3%, 1/79). The overall period prevalence of 16S RMTase-producing Gram-negative bacteria was 0.1% (79/71 063). Potential risk factors identified through multivariate statistical analysis included being male and polymyxin use. CONCLUSIONS: The UK prevalence of 16S RMTase-producing Gram-negative bacteria is low, but continued surveillance is needed to monitor their spread and inform intervention strategies.

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.

Brucella melitensis prosthetic joint infection in a traveller returning to the UK from Thailand: Case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Brucella spp. prosthetic joint infections are infrequently reported in the literature, particularly in returning travellers, and optimal treatment is unknown. METHOD: We describe a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) caused by Brucella melitensis in a traveller returning to the UK from Thailand, which we believe to be the first detailed report of brucellosis in a traveller returning from this area. The 23 patients with Brucella-related PJI reported in the literature are summarised, together with our case. RESULTS: The diagnosis of Brucella-related PJI is difficult to make; only 30% of blood cultures and 75% of joint aspiration cultures were positive in the reported cases. Culture of intraoperative samples provides the best diagnostic yield. In the absence of radiological evidence of joint loosening, combination antimicrobial therapy alone may be appropriate treatment in the first instance; this was successful in 6/7 [86%] of patients, though small numbers of patients and the likelihood of reporting bias warrant caution in drawing any firm conclusions about optimal treatment. Aerosolisation of synovial fluid during joint aspiration procedures and nosocomial infection has been described. CONCLUSIONS: Brucella-related PJI should be considered in the differential of travellers returning from endemic areas with PJI, including Thailand. Personal protective equipment including fit tested filtering face piece-3 (FFP3) mask or equivalent is recommended for personnel carrying out joint aspiration when brucellosis is suspected. Travellers can reduce the risk of brucellosis by avoiding unpasteurised dairy products and animal contact (particularly on farms and abattoirs) in endemic areas and should be counselled regarding these risks as part of their pre-travel assessment.

Emergence and spread of a human-transmissible multidrug-resistant nontuberculous mycobacterium.

Lung infections with Mycobacterium abscessus, a species of multidrug-resistant nontuberculous mycobacteria, are emerging as an important global threat to individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF), in whom M. abscessus accelerates inflammatory lung damage, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Previously, M. abscessus was thought to be independently acquired by susceptible individuals from the environment. However, using whole-genome analysis of a global collection of clinical isolates, we show that the majority of M. abscessus infections are acquired through transmission, potentially via fomites and aerosols, of recently emerged dominant circulating clones that have spread globally. We demonstrate that these clones are associated with worse clinical outcomes, show increased virulence in cell-based and mouse infection models, and thus represent an urgent international infection challenge.

Issues of human rabies immunoglobulin and vaccine: policy versus practice.

A retrospective audit was conducted of all issues of rabies vaccine or human rabies immunoglobulin (HRIG) from the Clinical Microbiology Department at University Hospital Aintree for post-exposure prophylaxis. The appropriateness of management was reviewed by a blinded panel, which used guidelines issued by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) as a standard. Thirty-six enquiries, on average 9 days following exposure, led to issues of HRIG, rabies vaccine or both. Dog bites accounted for the majority of incidents. In no cases was the biting animal recorded as having been observed for signs of rabies. Management was judged to have been inappropriate in 9 cases, and documentation was judged to have been unsatisfactory in 13 cases. This study has highlighted several areas of ambiguity in the current guidelines, and a number of deficiencies in the information prompted by the standardized proformas used to deal with post-exposure queries.