Oral Is the New IV. Challenging Decades of Blood and Bone Infection Dogma: A Systematic Review @bradspellberg @lacuscmedcenter @usc

Superb work from WaldDickler and coworkers adding to the growing body of evidence that (to coin a phrase from senior author Brad Spellberg), shorter may be better and oral > IV.


We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full duration of treatment for 3 invasive bacterial infections: osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis.


We performed a systematic review of published, prospective, controlled trials that compared IV-only to oral stepdown regimens in the treatment of these diseases. Using the PubMed database, we identified 7 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteomyelitis, 9 of bacteremia, 1 including both osteomyelitis and bacteremia, and 3 of endocarditis, as well as one quasi-experimental endocarditis study. Study results were synthesized via forest plots and funnel charts (for risk of study bias), using RevMan 5.4.1 and Meta-Essentials freeware, respectively.


The 21 studies demonstrated either no difference in clinical efficacy, or superiority of oral versus IV-only antimicrobial therapy, including for mortality; in no study was IV-only treatment superior in efficacy. The frequency of catheter-related adverse events and duration of inpatient hospitalization were both greater in IV-only groups.


Numerous prospective, controlled investigations demonstrate that oral antibiotics are at least as effective, safer, and lead to shorter hospitalizations than IV-only therapy; no contrary data were identified. Treatment guidelines should be modified to indicate that oral therapy is appropriate for reasonably selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights