Journal
OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages -Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofac140
Keywords
antibiotics; desirability of outcome ranking; Gram-negative bacteremia; treatment duration
Categories
Funding
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UM1AI104681]
- Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group fellowship (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease) [UM1AI104681]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of short and conventional duration antibiotic therapy for Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection using a desirability of outcome ranking analysis. The results showed that short duration of antibiotics provided similar clinical outcomes as a conventional duration.
Background Although a short course (7 days) of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be noninferior to a conventional course (14 days) in terms of mortality and infectious complications for patients with a Gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection (GNB), it is unknown whether a shorter treatment duration can provide a better overall clinical outcome. Methods We applied a bloodstream infection-specific desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) analysis to the results of a previously completed, randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with uncomplicated GNB. We determined the probability that a randomly selected participant in the short course group would have a more desirable overall outcome than a participant in the conventional duration group. We performed (1) partial credit analyses allowing for calculated and variable weighting of DOOR ranks and (2) subgroup analyses to elucidate which patients may benefit the most from short durations of therapy. Results For the 604 patients included in the original study (306 short course, 298 conventional course), the probability of having a more desirable outcome with a short course of antibiotics compared with a conventional course was 51.1% (95% confidence interval, 46.7% to 55.4%), indicating no significant difference. Partial credit analyses indicated that the DOOR results were similar across different patient preferences. Prespecified subgroup analyses using DOOR did not reveal significant differences between short and conventional courses of therapy. Conclusions Both short and conventional durations of antibiotic therapy provide comparable clinical outcomes when using DOOR to consider benefits and risks of treatment options for GNB. We retrospectively applied a desirability of outcome ranking analysis to a randomized controlled trial comparing short versus conventional durations of antibiotics for Gram-negative bacteremia. A short duration of antibiotics provided similar desirability of clinical outcomes as a conventional duration.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available