VIENNA – Oral antibiotic therapy is just as effective as intravenous treatment in curing bone and joint infections, but costs about $3,500 less.
Treating these infections with oral agents also “improves patient autonomy, as it’s not necessary to have IV lines at home,” and represents a generally wiser use of powerful antibiotics, Matthew Scarborough, MD, said at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases annual congress.
Michele G Sullivan/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Matthew Scarborough
OVIVA (Oral vs. Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection) was conducted at 26 sites in the United Kingdom. It randomized 1,054 adults with bone or joint infections to 6 weeks of either oral or intravenous treatment.
An important aspect of the trial was that both oral and IV treatment choices were made before randomization, Dr. Scarborough said. However, the decisions on what drug to use were left up to the treating physician and depended on the infection site and pathogen.
The primary outcome was definite treatment failure (bacteriologic, histologic, and clinical). Patients were followed for 1 year.
Patients were a median of 60 years old. All had surgical treatment before antibiotic therapy, including debridement and, in those with implants, removal of infected devices. The lower limb was involved in 81%, including hip, knee, and foot. The infection was in an upper limb in 10% and in the spine in 7%.
Staphylococcus aureus was present in 38% of cases, coagulase-negative staphylococci in 27%, and streptococci in 15%. Gram-negative bacteria were found in 22%.
For those patients randomized to IV therapy, glycopeptides and cephalosporins were most commonly employed (41% and 33%, respectively). For oral therapy, quinolones and penicillins were most common (37% and 16%). Most patients (74%) continued antibiotic treatment for more than 6 weeks. Forty patients were lost to follow-up.
In the primary intent-to-treat analysis, the failure rate was 13% for oral therapy and 14% for IV therapy, not a significant difference. Results were similar in the other analyses, including a modified intent to treat with only patients who had complete 1-year data, and a per-protocol analysis. All of the point prevalence numbers favored oral therapy, but crossed the null. Curves in the time-to-treatment-failure analysis were virtually superimposable, as were curves in time to discontinuation of therapy.
Another subgroup analysis examined treatment failure by infective organism; again, there were no significant treatment differences in any of the pathogen subgroups examined (S. aureus, coagulase-negative staph, streptococci species, and other gram-negative bacteria).
Nor did the type of antibiotic significantly affect failure rate, Dr. Scarborough noted. The median length of stay was 14 days for patients on IV treatment and 11 days for those taking oral medications. The incidence of serious adverse events was very similar – about 86% in each group.
On a visual analog scale that assessed health-related quality of life, patients taking oral treatment reported better mobility, self-care, and activity level, and less pain, discomfort, anxiety, and depression than those taking IV medications.
Cost represented the other significant difference between the groups. Over 1 year, the mean IV treatment cost was the equivalent of $17,152, and the mean oral treatment cost was $13,611 – a significant difference of $3,541.
“This represents a potential savings to the National Health Service of 16-25 million pounds sterling ($20.6 million-$32.3 million) per year,” Dr. Scarborough said. “All coming at no expense of good clinical outcomes.”
OVIVA was sponsored by the U.K. National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Scarborough had no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @alz_gal