Evaluation of Opportunities for Oral Antibiotic Therapy in Bone and Joint Infections.

BACKGROUND: The OVIVA trial suggests oral antibiotics are an alternative to intravenous antibiotics to treat bone and joint infections (BJI). A shift in practice to treatment with oral antibiotics would eliminate the need for central vascular access, improve patient satisfaction, and reduce overall healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to identify the proportion of patients treated for BJIs with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) who would have qualified for oral antibiotics based on microbiological data. The secondary objective was to conduct a cost-analysis to estimate potential cost-savings had eligible patients been treated with oral antibiotics. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients in the United States treated with intravenous antibiotics for BJIs from January 2018 to April 2020. Inclusion and exclusion criteria matched the OVIVA trial. Patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, endocarditis, or other high-risk features were excluded. RESULTS: 281 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most had prosthetic joint infections (56%). Infections caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (25%) were most common, followed by S. aureus (23%) and polymicrobial infections (22%). 69 (25%) patients required a switch during their OPAT course to an alternate antibiotic agent. Thirteen patients (5%) experienced vascular access complications, and 6 patients (2%) developed Clostridiodes difficile infections. Oral therapy could have resulted in an estimated average savings per patient of $3,270.69 USD. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Most patients treated with OPAT for BJIs were candidates for oral antibiotics. A change in practice would result in cost-savings to the U.S. healthcare system.

Safety and efficacy of direct two-step penicillin challenges with an inpatient pharmacist-driven allergy evaluation.

Background: Penicillin allergy is commonly reported and has clinical and financial consequences for patients and hospitals. A penicillin evaluation program can safely delabel patients and optimize antibiotic therapy. Pharmacists who perform this task have focused on a detailed interview or penicillin skin testing (PST). Antibiotic graded challenge after PST requires more resources and is more costly than going directly to a two-step challenge. Objective: To determine whether a pharmacist-driven penicillin allergy evaluation and a testing protocol that primarily uses direct oral challenges can safely delabel patients. Methods: Adult patients (ages >18 years) with a penicillin allergy in their electronic medical record (EMR) who were admitted between September 2019 and June 2020 were eligible. Although all patients with penicillin allergy were eligible, priority was given to patients who required antibiotics. Patients were interviewed, and, if indicated, based on an institutional protocol, were tested by using PST and/or two-step oral challenge. If the patient passed the challenge, then the penicillin allergy label was removed in the EMR and the patient counseled. Demographic information, allergy questionnaire results, testing results, and changes in antimicrobial therapy were collected. Results: Fifty patients were evaluated from September 2019 to June 2020. Ninety-six percent of the patients were delabeled, and antibiotic therapy changed for 54%. Twenty patients were delabeled with an interview alone, and 30 patients underwent oral two-step challenge. Only one patient required PST. Conclusion: A pharmacist-driven penicillin allergy evaluation program focused on direct oral graded challenges and bypassing PST can effectively delabel admitted patients. However, more safety data are needed before implementation of similar programs to optimize antibiotic treatment.