Implementing Oral Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infections: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for Improvement.

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-11-16 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofae683
Marten R Hawkins, Elizabeth Thottacherry, Prerak Juthani, Jenny Aronson, Amy Chang, Derek F Amanatullah, Jessie Markovits, Sa Shen, Marisa Holubar, Jason R Andrews, Julie Parsonnet, Daisuke Furukawa
{"title":"Implementing Oral Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infections: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for Improvement.","authors":"Marten R Hawkins, Elizabeth Thottacherry, Prerak Juthani, Jenny Aronson, Amy Chang, Derek F Amanatullah, Jessie Markovits, Sa Shen, Marisa Holubar, Jason R Andrews, Julie Parsonnet, Daisuke Furukawa","doi":"10.1093/ofid/ofae683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although intravenous antibiotics have historically been the standard of care for bone and joint infections, clinical trial data have highlighted the safety and efficacy of oral antibiotics. Despite this, intravenous antibiotics are still commonly used, and evaluations of institutional guidelines advancing oral antibiotic use are limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In April 2023, we implemented a new institutional guideline to preferentially treat patients with bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics. The postguideline cohort was compared with a historical preguideline cohort via retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged exclusively on oral antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included 90-day treatment failure, length of stay, and adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred eighty-six patients (53 preguideline and 133 postguideline) were included in the analysis. Patients in the postguideline cohort were more likely to be discharged exclusively on oral antibiotics (25% vs 70%; <i>P</i> < .01), with no difference in 90-day treatment failure (8% vs 9%; <i>P</i> = .75). Patients in the postguideline cohort had a shorter length of stay than preguideline (median, 8 vs 7 days; <i>P</i> = .04) and trended toward fewer peripherally inserted central catheter-related adverse events (6% vs 1%; <i>P</i> = .07).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An institutional guideline was effective in increasing the proportion of patients with bone and joint infections discharged on oral antibiotics. We observed similar clinical outcomes after implementing the guidelines while reducing length of hospital stay.</p>","PeriodicalId":19517,"journal":{"name":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","volume":"11 12","pages":"ofae683"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11629981/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae683","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although intravenous antibiotics have historically been the standard of care for bone and joint infections, clinical trial data have highlighted the safety and efficacy of oral antibiotics. Despite this, intravenous antibiotics are still commonly used, and evaluations of institutional guidelines advancing oral antibiotic use are limited.

Methods: In April 2023, we implemented a new institutional guideline to preferentially treat patients with bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics. The postguideline cohort was compared with a historical preguideline cohort via retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged exclusively on oral antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included 90-day treatment failure, length of stay, and adverse effects.

Results: One hundred eighty-six patients (53 preguideline and 133 postguideline) were included in the analysis. Patients in the postguideline cohort were more likely to be discharged exclusively on oral antibiotics (25% vs 70%; P < .01), with no difference in 90-day treatment failure (8% vs 9%; P = .75). Patients in the postguideline cohort had a shorter length of stay than preguideline (median, 8 vs 7 days; P = .04) and trended toward fewer peripherally inserted central catheter-related adverse events (6% vs 1%; P = .07).

Conclusions: An institutional guideline was effective in increasing the proportion of patients with bone and joint infections discharged on oral antibiotics. We observed similar clinical outcomes after implementing the guidelines while reducing length of hospital stay.

实施口服抗生素治疗骨和关节感染:经验教训和改进的机会。
背景:虽然静脉注射抗生素一直是骨关节感染的标准治疗方法,但临床试验数据强调了口服抗生素的安全性和有效性。尽管如此,静脉注射抗生素仍然被普遍使用,而促进口服抗生素使用的机构指南的评估是有限的。方法:2023年4月,我们实施了一项新的机构指南,优先使用口服抗生素治疗骨和关节感染患者。通过回顾性图表回顾,将指南后队列与历史指南前队列进行比较。主要终点是仅使用口服抗生素出院的患者比例。次要结局包括90天治疗失败、住院时间和不良反应。结果:共纳入186例患者(指南前53例,指南后133例)。指南后队列中的患者更有可能仅使用口服抗生素出院(25% vs 70%;P < 0.01), 90天治疗失败率无差异(8% vs 9%;P = .75)。指南后队列患者的住院时间比指南前队列短(中位数,8天vs 7天;P = .04),并且倾向于更少的外周插入中心导管相关不良事件(6% vs 1%;P = .07)。结论:一项制度性指南对于提高骨关节感染患者口服抗生素出院的比例是有效的。我们观察到在实施指南同时减少住院时间后的类似临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
630
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Forum Infectious Diseases provides a global forum for the publication of clinical, translational, and basic research findings in a fully open access, online journal environment. The journal reflects the broad diversity of the field of infectious diseases, and focuses on the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice, with a particular emphasis on knowledge that holds the potential to improve patient care in populations around the world. Fully peer-reviewed, OFID supports the international community of infectious diseases experts by providing a venue for articles that further the understanding of all aspects of infectious diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信