12 research outputs found

    Can the Future of ID Escape the Inertial Dogma of Its Past? The Exemplars of Shorter Is Better and Oral Is the New IV.

    Get PDF
    Like all fields of medicine, Infectious Diseases is rife with dogma that underpins much clinical practice. In this study, we discuss 2 specific examples of historical practice that have been overturned recently by numerous prospective studies: traditional durations of antimicrobial therapy and the necessity of intravenous (IV)-only therapy for specific infectious syndromes. These dogmas are based on uncontrolled case series from >50 years ago, amplified by the opinions of eminent experts. In contrast, more than 120 modern, randomized controlled trials have established that shorter durations of therapy are equally effective for many infections. Furthermore, 21 concordant randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that oral antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as IV-only therapy for osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis. Nevertheless, practitioners in many clinical settings remain refractory to adopting these changes. It is time for Infectious Diseases to move beyond its history of eminent opinion-based medicine and truly into the era of evidenced-based medicine

    Use of Novel Strategies to Develop Guidelines for Management of Pyogenic Osteomyelitis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

    Get PDF
    Importance Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Objective To construct a clinical guideline for pyogenic osteomyelitis management, with a new standard of evidence to resolve the gap between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, through the use of a novel open access approach utilizing social media tools. Evidence Review This consensus statement and systematic review study used a novel approach from the WikiGuidelines Group, an open access collaborative research project, to construct clinical guidelines for pyogenic osteomyelitis. In June 2021 and February 2022, authors recruited via social media conducted multiple PubMed literature searches, including all years and languages, regarding osteomyelitis management; criteria for article quality and inclusion were specified in the group's charter. The GRADE system for evaluating evidence was not used based on previously published concerns regarding the potential dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Instead, the charter required that clear recommendations be made only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were drafted to discuss pros and cons of care choices. Both clear recommendations and clinical reviews were planned with the intention to be regularly updated as new data become available. Findings Sixty-three participants with diverse expertise from 8 countries developed the group's charter and its first guideline on pyogenic osteomyelitis. These participants included both nonacademic and academic physicians and pharmacists specializing in general internal medicine or hospital medicine, infectious diseases, orthopedic surgery, pharmacology, and medical microbiology. Of the 7 questions addressed in the guideline, 2 clear recommendations were offered for the use of oral antibiotic therapy and the duration of therapy. In addition, 5 clinical reviews were authored addressing diagnosis, approaches to osteomyelitis underlying a pressure ulcer, timing for the administration of empirical therapy, specific antimicrobial options (including empirical regimens, use of antimicrobials targeting resistant pathogens, the role of bone penetration, and the use of rifampin as adjunctive therapy), and the role of biomarkers and imaging to assess responses to therapy. Conclusions and Relevance The WikiGuidelines approach offers a novel methodology for clinical guideline development that precludes recommendations based on low-quality data or opinion. The primary limitation is the need for more rigorous clinical investigations, enabling additional clear recommendations for clinical questions currently unresolved by high-quality data

    Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence. OBJECTIVE To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. EVIDENCE REVIEW This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches. FINDINGS A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed

    The PEST (Pathology, Epidemiology, Severity, Treatment) approach to optimizing antimicrobial therapy

    No full text
    Abstract Background Selecting an empiric antimicrobial regimen can be difficult for early learners and misuse of antibiotics can lead to adverse events and antimicrobial resistance. There have been few interventions that have focused on improving antibiotic decision making, as a form of therapeutic reasoning, for post-graduate trainees. We describe here an approach to aid internal medicine interns in their therapeutic reasoning, particularly when it comes to diagnosing and empirically treating infections. Methods The PEST (pathology, epidemiology, severity, treatment) model was created as a four-step approach to therapeutic reasoning and choosing an appropriate antimicrobial regimen for a given infectious disease syndrome. In February 2020, we conducted two independent teaching sessions for interns on the PEST approach. We assessed pre-and post-teaching responses to five clinical vignette-based questions. Results were presented as a percentage of interns who chose an appropriate antibiotic and provided sufficient therapeutic reasoning as defined by using at least three out of the four PEST criteria. Statistical analysis occurred via Fischer’s exact test to determine the level of statistical significance between responses. Results Twenty-seven interns participated in the activity. At baseline, several interns had incorporated aspects of the PEST approach in their pre-teaching responses. Ten interns commented on the usefulness of such a systematic approach. While there was no statistically significant difference in antibiotic selection, the teaching session demonstrated a trend towards significance in improving therapeutic reasoning as defined by the PEST strategy. Conclusion Our results suggested an improvement in using a structured cognitive tool such as the PEST approach to reinforce therapeutic reasoning, but the method did little to improve antibiotic selection. Some interns used select “PEST” concepts prior to the intervention suggesting that the PEST approach may enhance prior knowledge or clinical reasoning skills. Continued incorporation of the PEST approach using a case-based framework may solidify conceptual and practical knowledge of antimicrobial selection. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such teaching interventions
    corecore