Variation in North American Infectious Disease Specialists' Practice Regarding Oral and Suppressive Antibiotics for Adult Osteoarticular Infections: Results of an Emerging Infections Network (EIN) Survey

Abstract Background Osteoarticular infections (OAIs) are commonly treated with prolonged intravenous (IV) antimicrobials. The Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection (OVIVA) trial demonstrated that oral (PO) antibiotics are noninferior to IV antibiotics in the treatment of OAIs. We surveyed infectious disease (ID) physicians about their use of PO antibiotics in the treatment of OAIs. Methods An Emerging Infection Network survey with 9 questions regarding antibiotic prescribing for the treatment of OAIs was sent to 1475 North American ID physicians. The questions were mostly multiple choice and focused on the use of definitive oral antibiotic therapy (defined as oral switch within 2 weeks of starting antibiotics) and chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT). Results Of the 413 physicians who reported treating OAIs, 91% used oral antibiotics at least sometimes and 31% used them as definitive therapy, most often for diabetic foot osteomyelitis and native joint septic arthritis. The oral antibiotics most frequently used for OAIs included trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline/minocycline, and linezolid for Staphylococcus aureus, amoxicillin/cefadroxil/cephalexin for streptococci, and fluoroquinolones for gram-negative organisms. The most common rationales for not transitioning to oral antibiotics included nonsusceptible pathogens, comorbidities preventing therapeutic drug levels, and concerns about adherence. SAT use was variable but employed by a majority in most cases of periprosthetic joint infection managed with debridement and implant retention. Conclusions North American ID physicians utilize oral antibiotics and SAT for the management of OAIs, although significant practice variation exists. Respondents voiced a need for updated guidelines.