ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2026
Should We Extend the Use of Oral Antibiotics in Infective Endocarditis? The ENDO-ORAL Study.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partial Oral Antibiotic Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Practical Review of Current Evidence and Guidelines.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- IV-Oral Antibiotic Switch in Streptococcal and Enterococcal Endocarditis: Evaluating ESC Versus WikiGuideline Criteria.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Real-World Infective Endocarditis in a Regional Hospital: Clinical Severity, Guideline Adherence, and Determinants of In-Hospital Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSwitching to oral therapy has become an option for treating infective endocarditis (IE) in well-selected patients. This study aimed to assess its effectiveness in real-life settings, including patients who would not have been eligible under current guidelines based on the POET trial results.
methodsAll adults treated for IE in two French tertiary centers from January 2016 to December 2023 were included in a retrospective cohort. For each participant, clinical, microbiological, and therapeutic data were collected retrospectively. Patients who received at least 10 days of effective antibiotic therapy were included and categorized based on the route of administration (exclusively intravenous or with a switch to oral therapy). POET-ineligible patients were those who were not eligible in the POET trial. Treatment failure (death, recurrence, or need for suppressive therapy, within 3 months following completion of the initial antibiotic course) was assessed using propensity score (PS) analysis, with oral switch as a time-dependent variable.
resultsThree hundred and thirty-three participants were included (233 in the intravenous group and 100 patients in the oral group). No significant difference in treatment failure was observed between groups after adjustment using a PS (HR = 0.55 in favor of oral switch, 95% CI = .27-1.17). The results were similar in the POET-ineligible subgroup, which accounted for 44.7% of participants. Days alive outside the hospital were significantly higher in the oral group (59 vs 47 days, P = .001).
conclusionsOral switch is a suitable option beyond "classical" frontiers in the management of IE, with potential direct and indirect benefits.
Indexed as
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.