Loudermilk Carly, Eudy Joshua, Albrecht Stephanie, Slaton Cara N, Stramel Stefanie, Tu Patrick, Albrecht Benjamin, Green Sarah B, Bouchard Jeannette L, Orvin Alison I, Caveness Christian F, Newsome Andrea Sikora, Bland Christopher M, Anderson Daniel T
Department of Pharmacy, WellStar MCG Health, Augusta, GA, USA.
Department of Pharmacy, UofL Health, UofL Hospital, Louisville, KY, USA.
Ann Pharmacother. 2025 Feb;59(2):127-133. doi: 10.1177/10600280241260146. Epub 2024 Jun 17.
Intravenous (IV) antibiotics have historically been considered standard of care for treatment of bloodstream infections (BSIs). Recent literature has shown sequential oral (PO) therapy to be noninferior to IV antibiotics for certain pathogens and disease states. However, a gap exists in the literature for BSI caused by .
To compare outcomes of definitive sequential PO therapy to definitive IV therapy in patients with BSI.
Multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study of adult patients with at least one blood culture positive for from January 2017 to November 2022. Patients with polymicrobial BSI, concomitant infections requiring prolonged IV antibiotic therapy, those who did not receive antibiotic therapy, and those who died within 72 hours of index culture were excluded. Subjects were matched based on source of infection in a 2:1 (IV:PO) ratio. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), antibiotic duration, and 30-day readmission rate.
Of the 186 patients who met criteria for inclusion, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary composite outcome for PO compared to IV therapy (14.5% vs 21.8%; OR 0.53 [0.23-1.25]) or 30-day readmission (17.5% vs 29%; OR 0.53 [0.25-1.13]). Hospital LOS was significantly longer in patients receiving IV-only therapy (6 days vs 14 days; < 0.001).
Sequential oral therapy for BSI had similar outcomes compared to IV-only treatment and may be considered in eligible patients.
静脉注射(IV)抗生素一直以来都被视为治疗血流感染(BSIs)的标准治疗方法。近期文献表明,对于某些病原体和疾病状态,序贯口服(PO)疗法并不逊色于静脉注射抗生素。然而,关于由……引起的血流感染的文献存在空白。
比较确诊为血流感染的患者接受确定性序贯口服疗法与确定性静脉注射疗法的疗效。
对2017年1月至2022年11月期间至少有一次血培养阳性的成年患者进行多中心、回顾性、匹配队列研究。排除患有多种微生物血流感染、需要长期静脉注射抗生素治疗的合并感染患者、未接受抗生素治疗的患者以及在索引培养后72小时内死亡的患者。根据感染源以2:1(静脉注射:口服)的比例对受试者进行匹配。主要结局是全因死亡率和治疗失败的综合指标。次要结局包括住院时间(LOS)、抗生素使用时长和30天再入院率。
在符合纳入标准的186例患者中,口服疗法与静脉注射疗法相比,主要综合结局(14.5%对21.8%;比值比0.53[0.23 - 1.25])或30天再入院率(17.5%对29%;比值比0.53[0.25 - 1.13])没有统计学上的显著差异。仅接受静脉注射治疗的患者住院时间明显更长(6天对14天;P<0.001)。
对于血流感染,序贯口服疗法与仅静脉注射治疗的疗效相似,符合条件的患者可以考虑采用。