Full bibliography

Abstract Background The Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics (OVIVA) Trial demonstrated that oral therapy, when used during the initial 6 weeks in the treatment in bone and joint infection (BJI), is noninferior to intravenous therapy. To date there are no reports describing reproducibility of these findings in a real-world setting. Methods We studied all patients diagnosed with BJI at our hospital 12 months pre- and postimplementation of the OVIVA trial findings into clinical practice. An infection consultant recommended antibiotic treatment and patients were followed up by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) service. Prospective data from a local registry was used to analyze baseline clinical details, outcome, length of hospital stay (LOS), and costs. Results A cohort of 328 patients (145 pre- and 183 postimplementation) was analyzed. Postimplementation, 66.1% of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen. Definite failure at 1 year was 13.6% in the preimplementation group and 18.6% in the postimplementation group (P = .154). Postimplementation, definite failure was more common in patients requiring intravenous antibiotics due to lack of suitable oral options (intravenous, 26.7% and oral, 14.3%). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) requiring closer monitoring or change to treatment were more common postimplementation (21.0% and 37.1%, respectively). ADR-related hospital readmissions were similar in both groups (2.1 and 2.2%). Comparing both groups, the postimplementation group showed a reduction of 4 days in the median LOS and a median cost reduction of £2764.28 per patient. Conclusions The OVIVA trial findings can be safely implemented into clinical practice when patients on oral antibiotics are followed up by an established OPAT service. Two-thirds of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen. Implementation led to reductions in hospital LOS and antibiotic costs.