Background The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. Methods We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. Results Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of −1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], −4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, −5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P = 0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). Conclusions Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927.)

Background Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. Objective To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. Design Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. Setting Twenty-six NHS hospitals. Participants Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Interventions Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. Results Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was –1.38% (90% confidence interval –4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. Limitations The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. Conclusions PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. Future work Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

OBJECTIVES:To study the efficacy, and acceptability and reasons for discontinuity of CCVRs in Indian women along with cycle control, safety aspects, local and systemic adverse effects, chances of spontaneous expulsion and partner compliance. METHODS: This interventional longitudinal study included 45 married women aged between 18-45 years seeking reversible means of contraception but with no history of usage of any form of hormonal contraceptives in the previous 6 months. The outcome variables were measured in terms of contraceptive efficacy, cycle regularity, systemic effects on blood pressure, liver function, body weight, lipid parameters and blood sugar along with local effect on cervix and vagina. Patient compliance, acceptability and spouse compliance was also measured by questionnaires. RESULTS: In this study there were no unwanted pregnancies in women amongst 117 exposed cycles. The incidence of intended bleeding pattern was 95%, the effect of CCVR on liver function, blood pressure, etc. was not clinically relevant. It was not associated with an increased risk of cervical or vaginal abnormalities, 96% women were satisfied with the ring usage and 97% would recommend it to others, 70% of women and 82% of their partners never/ rarely felt the ring during intercourse. CONCLUSION: From the present study, it can be concluded that CCVR is an effective contraceptive with good cycle control, minimal systemic or local adverse effects along with low incidence of spontaneous expulsion and higher level of user and partner acceptability.

No abstract

Background:Lignocaine + adrenaline; a local anesthetic agent; frequently used for perilesional infiltration, maintains the stable hemodynamics and decreases the postoperative pain after maxillofacial surgery. α2 agonists have peripheral analgesic effects. This prospective study was to evaluate the effectiveness of perilesional dexmedetomidine administered preincisionally in addition to conventional lignocaine adrenaline combinations for reconstructive maxillofacial surgery in an ambulatory care setting.Materials and Methods:76, American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II patients scheduled for unilateral traumatic maxillofacial surgeries were randomly allocated into group DL (n = 38) receiving 15 cc of 2% lignocaine + adrenaline (1:200,000) mixed with 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine and group PL receiving 15 cc of 2% lignocaine + adrenaline with normal saline (placebo) via local wound infiltration 5 min prior to skin incision. Perioperative hemodynamics, time to first analgesic use, total analgesic need, bleeding, and side effects were recorded for each patient.Results:Dosage of supplemental propofol; total perioperative, postoperative, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) fentanyl consumption was significantly lower (P = 0.0001, P= 0.0001, P= 0.0001, P= 0.004, respectively) in dexmedetomine treated group than placebo. Rescue analgesic requirement was significantly earlier in group PL than group DL. Group DL patients suffered from significantly less (P = 0.02) bleeding and surgeon's satisfaction score was also high in this group. Discharge from PACU was significantly earlier in group DL. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters were significantly lower in group DL (P < 0.05) without any appreciable side effects.Conclusion:Thus, prior dexmedetomidine local infiltration at the site of maxillofacial trauma has significantly reduced bleeding from wound site; perioperative fentanyl, propofol consumption, and subsequently ensured earlier discharge from PACU, better surgeon's satisfaction score with better hemodynamic control and lesser side effects.