ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2025
Comparison of intravenous vs intravenous with step-down to oral antibiotic treatment course for Streptococcus and Enterococcus bloodstream infections.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare clinical failure of intravenous vs intravenous with oral step-down antibiotic treatment for Streptococcus and Enterococcus bloodstream infection. Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study at one academic medical center and eight community hospitals. Patients: Hospitalized adult patients with blood cultures positive for Streptococcus or Enterococcus were included. Patients were excluded if they had complicated infection, had polymicrobial bacteremia, received less than 5 days of therapy, or died before completing therapy. Methods: Patients who completed intravenous therapy were compared with patients who transitioned to oral therapy after 3 to 7 days. The primary endpoint was clinical failure, defined as 90-day all-cause mortality or recurrent bacteremia. The primary analysis excluded patients with unknown outcomes, and the sensitivity analysis treated them as failures. Results: 429 patients were included (intravenous group: n = 225; oral step-down group; n = 204). The intravenous group had more comorbidities and vasopressor use. The intravenous group had a higher risk of clinical failure in the primary analysis (17.5% vs. 8.8%; adjusted OR 2.14 [95% CI, 1.09-4.2]; Conclusion: Oral step-down therapy was not associated with an increased risk of clinical failure compared to a full course of intravenous therapy for uncomplicated Streptococcus and Enterococcus bloodstream infections. Patients with more comorbidities or who required vasopressors were less likely to be switched to oral therapy.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.