4.7 Article

Efficacy of Early Oral Switch with β-Lactams for Low-Risk Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

Journal

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 64, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02345-19

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia; low risk; early oral switch; betalactam

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of early oral switch (EOS) prior to 14 days for low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (LR-SAB), which is the primary treatment strategy used at our institution. The usual recommended therapy is 14 days of intravenous (i.v.) antibiotics. All patients with SAB at our hospital were identified between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018. Those meeting low-risk criteria (health care-associated, no evidence of deep infection or demonstrated involvement of prosthetic material, and no further positive blood cultures after 72 h) were included in the study. The primary outcome was occurrence of a SAB-related complication within 90 days. There were 469 SAB episodes during the study period, 100 (21%) of whom met inclusion criteria. EOS was performed in 84 patients. In this group, line infection was the source in 79%, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus caused 95% of SABs and 74% of patients received i.v. flucloxacillin. The median durations of i.v. and oral antibiotics in the EOS group were 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 6) and 10 days (IQR, 9 to 14), respectively. A total of 71% of patients received flucloxacillin as their EOS agent. Overall, 86% of oral step-down therapy was with betalactams. One patient (1%) undergoing EOS had SAB relapse within 90 days. No deaths attributable to SAB occurred within 90 days. In this low-MRSA-prevalence LRSAB cohort, EOS was associated with a low incidence of SAB-related complications. This was achieved with oral beta-lactam therapy in most patients. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available