Infective Endocarditis Antibiotic Prophylaxis: Review of the Evidence and Guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The question of antibiotic prophylaxis and its role in prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) remains controversial, with differing recommendations from international societies. The aim of this review was to compare and contrast current recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis for IE by the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and highlight the evidence supporting these recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: International guidelines for administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of IE are largely unchanged since 2009. Studies on the impact of the more restrictive antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations are conflicting, with several studies suggesting lack of adherence to current guidance from the ESC (2015), NICE (2016), and AHA (2021). The question of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with IE remains controversial, with differing recommendations from international societies. Despite the change in guidelines more than 15 years ago, lack of adherence to current guidelines persists. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence and the conflicting results from observational studies along with the lack of randomized clinical trials, the question of whether to recommend antibiotic prophylaxis or not in certain patient populations remains unanswered and remains largely based on expert consensus opinion.

Rifampicin reduces plasma concentration of linezolid in patients with infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid in combination with rifampicin has been used in treatment of infective endocarditis especially for patients infected with staphylococci. OBJECTIVES: Because rifampicin has been reported to reduce the plasma concentration of linezolid, the present study aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of linezolid for the purpose of quantifying an effect of rifampicin cotreatment. In addition, the possibility of compensation by dosage adjustments was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pharmacokinetic measurements were performed in 62 patients treated with linezolid for left-sided infective endocarditis in the Partial Oral Endocarditis Treatment (POET) trial. Fifteen patients were cotreated with rifampicin. A total of 437 linezolid plasma concentrations were obtained. The pharmacokinetic data were adequately described by a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and first-order elimination. RESULTS: We demonstrated a substantial increase of linezolid clearance by 150% (95% CI: 78%-251%), when combined with rifampicin. The final model was evaluated by goodness-of-fit plots showing an acceptable fit, and a visual predictive check validated the model. Model-based dosing simulations showed that rifampicin cotreatment decreased the PTA of linezolid from 94.3% to 34.9% and from 52.7% to 3.5% for MICs of 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial interaction between linezolid and rifampicin was detected in patients with infective endocarditis, and the interaction was stronger than previously reported. Model-based simulations showed that increasing the linezolid dose might compensate without increasing the risk of adverse effects to the same degree.

Attainment of Target Antibiotic Levels by Oral Treatment of Left-Sided Infective Endocarditis: A POET Substudy.

BACKGROUND: In the POET (Partial Oral Endocarditis Treatment) trial, oral step-down therapy was noninferior to full-length intravenous antibiotic administration. The aim of the present study was to perform pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses for oral treatments of infective endocarditis to assess the probabilities of target attainment (PTAs). METHODS: Plasma concentrations of oral antibiotics were measured at day 1 and 5. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined for the bacteria causing infective endocarditis (streptococci, staphylococci, or enterococci). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets were predefined according to literature using time above MIC or the ratio of area under the curve to MIC. Population pharmacokinetic modeling and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses were done for amoxicillin, dicloxacillin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, and rifampicin, and PTAs were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients participated in this POET substudy. For amoxicillin and linezolid, the PTAs were 88%-100%. For moxifloxacin and rifampicin, the PTAs were 71%-100%. Using a clinical breakpoint for staphylococci, the PTAs for dicloxacillin were 9%-17%.Seventy-four patients at day 1 and 65 patients at day 5 had available pharmacokinetic and MIC data for 2 oral antibiotics. Of those, 13 patients at day 1 and 14 patients at day 5 did only reach the target for 1 antibiotic. One patient did not reach target for any of the 2 antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: For the individual orally administered antibiotic, the majority reached the target level. Patients with sub-target levels were compensated by the administration of 2 different antibiotics. The findings support the efficacy of oral step-down antibiotic treatment in patients with infective endocarditis.

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541). SETTING: Denmark, April and May 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use. INTERVENTION: Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses. RESULTS: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. LIMITATION: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others. CONCLUSION: The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Salling Foundations.

Utility of multiple rule out CT screening of high-risk atraumatic patients in an emergency department-a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Several large trials have evaluated the effect of CT screening based on specific symptoms, with varying outcomes. Screening of patients with CT based on their prognosis alone has not been examined before. For moderate-to-high risk patients presenting in the emergency department (ED), the potential gain from a CT scan might outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. We hypothesized that an accelerated "multiple rule out" CT screening of moderate-to-high risk patients will detect many clinically unrecognized diagnoses that affect change in treatment. METHOD: Patients ≥ 40 years, triaged as high-risk or moderate-to-high risk according to vital signs, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were scanned with a combined ECG-gated and dual energy CT scan of cerebrum, thorax, and abdomen. The impact of the CT scan on patient diagnosis and treatment was examined prospectively by an expert panel. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the study, (53% female, mean age 73 years [age range, 43-93]). The scan lead to change in treatment or additional examinations in 37 (37%) patients, of which 24 (24%) were diagnostically significant, change in acute treatment in 11 (11%) cases and previously unrecognized malignant tumors in 10 (10%) cases. The mean size specific radiation dose was 15.9 mSv (± 3.1 mSv). CONCLUSION: Screening with a multi-rule out CT scan of high-risk patients in an ED is feasible and result in discovery of clinically unrecognized diagnoses and malignant tumors, but at the cost of radiation exposure and downstream examinations. The clinical impact of these findings should be evaluated in a larger randomized cohort.