Lockhart, Peter B.

Abstract Objective Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. Subjects and Methods Cohort and case‐crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. Results The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40–52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62–119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.53, p < 0.0001). Case‐crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65–5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18–21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. Conclusions Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high‐risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

Objective Antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing specific invasive procedures (IPs) despite a lack of data supporting its use. Therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations ceased in the mid-2000s for all but those at high IE risk undergoing invasive dental procedures. We aimed to quantify any association between IPs and IE. Methods All 14 731 IE hospital admissions in England between April 2010 and March 2016 were identified from national admissions data, and medical records were searched for IP performed during the 15-month period before IE admission. We compared the incidence of IP during the 3 months immediately before IE admission (case period) with the incidence during the preceding 12 months (control period) to determine whether the odds of developing IE were increased in the 3 months after certain IP. Results The odds of IE were increased following permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.85, p<0.001), extractions/surgical tooth removal (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.76, p=0.047), upper (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85, p<0.001) and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.04, p<0.001) and bone marrow biopsy (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.69, p=0.039). Using an alternative analysis, bronchoscopy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68, p=0.049) and blood transfusions/red cell/plasma exchange (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.35, p=0.012) were also associated with IE. Conclusions This study identifies a significant association between specific IPs (permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation, dental extraction, gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy) and subsequent IE that warrants re-evaluation of current antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations to prevent IE in high IE risk individuals.

Background Infective endocarditis is a heart infection with a first-year mortality rate of ≈ 30%. It has long been thought that infective endocarditis is causally associated with bloodstream seeding with oral bacteria in ≈ 40–45% of cases. This theorem led guideline committees to recommend that individuals at increased risk of infective endocarditis should receive antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing invasive dental procedures. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has never been a clinical trial to prove the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and there is no good-quality evidence to link invasive dental procedures with infective endocarditis. Many contend that oral bacteria-related infective endocarditis is more likely to result from daily activities (e.g. tooth brushing, flossing and chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene. Objective The aim of this study was to determine if there is a temporal association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent infective endocarditis, particularly in those at high risk of infective endocarditis. Design This was a self-controlled, case-crossover design study comparing the number of invasive dental procedures in the 3 months immediately before an infective endocarditis-related hospital admission with that in the preceding 12-month control period. Setting The study took place in the English NHS. Participants All individuals admitted to hospital with infective endocarditis between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2016 were eligible to participate. Interventions This was an observational study; therefore, there was no intervention. Main outcome measure The outcome measure was the number of invasive and non-invasive dental procedures in the months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. Data sources NHS Digital provided infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions data and dental procedure data were obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority. Results The incidence rate of invasive dental procedures decreased in the 3 months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission (incidence rate ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58). Further analysis showed that this was due to loss of dental procedure data in the 2–3 weeks before any infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. Limitations We found that urgent hospital admissions were a common cause of incomplete courses of dental treatment and, because there is no requirement to record dental procedure data for incomplete courses, this resulted in a significant loss of dental procedure data in the 2–3 weeks before infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions. The data set was also reduced because of the NHS Business Services Authority’s 10-year data destruction policy, reducing the power of the study. The main consequence was a loss of dental procedure data in the critical 3-month case period of the case-crossover analysis (immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission), which did not occur in earlier control periods. Part of the decline in the rate of invasive dental procedures may also be the result of the onset of illness prior to infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, and part may be due to other undefined causes. Conclusions The loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission makes interpretation of the data difficult and raises uncertainty over any conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Future work We suggest repeating this study elsewhere using data that are unafflicted by loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11684416. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Dentists prescribe a large portion of all oral antibiotics, and these are associated with a risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of ADRs associated with oral antibiotics commonly prescribed by dentists. NHS Digital Prescribing data and Yellow Card Drug Analysis data for 2010 to 2017 were abstracted to quantify dental antibiotic prescribing in England, and the rate and types of ADRs associated with them. During the period of study, the mean number of actively practicing dentists in England was 23,624. Amoxicillin accounted for 64.8% of dental antibiotic prescribing and had the lowest reported rate of fatal ADRs (0.1/million prescriptions) and overall ADRs (21.5/million prescriptions). Indeed, amoxicillin was respectively 6 and 3 times less likely to cause an ADR than the other penicillins, penicillin V and amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, and appears to be very safe in patients with no history of penicillin allergy. In contrast, clindamycin, which is often used in patients with penicillin allergy, had the highest rate of fatal (2.9/million prescriptions) and overall (337.3/million prescriptions) ADRs, with Clostridiodes (formerly Clostridium) difficile infections pivotal to its ADR profile. Other amoxicillin alternatives, clarithromycin and metronidazole, while significantly worse than amoxicillin, were 3 and nearly 5 times less likely to cause an ADR than clindamycin. Ranked from least to most likely to cause an ADR, antibiotics most commonly prescribed were as follows: amoxicillin < cephalosporins < erythromycin < tetracyclines < azithromycin < metronidazole < amoxicillin + clavulanic acid < clarithromycin < penicillin V < clindamycin. This study confirmed the high level of safety associated with use of amoxicillin by dentists and the significantly worse rates of fatal and nonfatal ADRs associated with other penicillins and alternatives to amoxicillin for those who are penicillin allergic. In particular, clindamycin had the highest rate of fatal and nonfatal ADRs of any of the antibiotics commonly prescribed by dentists.

Abstract Aims There are scant comparative data quantifying the risk of infective endocarditis (IE) and associated mortality in individuals with predisposing cardiac conditions. Methods and results English hospital admissions for conditions associated with increased IE risk were followed for 5 years to quantify subsequent IE admissions. The 5-year risk of IE or dying during an IE admission was calculated for each condition and compared with the entire English population as a control. Infective endocarditis incidence in the English population was 36.2/million/year. In comparison, patients with a previous history of IE had the highest risk of recurrence or dying during an IE admission [odds ratio (OR) 266 and 215, respectively]. These risks were also high in patients with prosthetic valves (OR 70 and 62) and previous valve repair (OR 77 and 60). Patients with congenital valve anomalies (currently considered ‘moderate risk’) had similar levels of risk (OR 66 and 57) and risks in other ‘moderate-risk’ conditions were not much lower. Congenital heart conditions (CHCs) repaired with prosthetic material (currently considered ‘high risk’ for 6 months following surgery) had lower risk than all ‘moderate-risk’ conditions—even in the first 6 months. Infective endocarditis risk was also significant in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Conclusion These data confirm the high IE risk of patients with a history of previous IE, valve replacement, or repair. However, IE risk in some ‘moderate-risk’ patients was similar to that of several ‘high-risk’ conditions and higher than repaired CHC. Guidelines for the risk stratification of conditions predisposing to IE may require re-evaluation.

Background: In March 2008, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended stopping antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for those at risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing dental procedures in the United Kingdom, citing a lack of evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We have performed a new economic evaluation of AP on the basis of contemporary estimates of efficacy, adverse events, and resource implications. Methods: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was used. Health service costs and benefits (measured as quality-adjusted life-years) were estimated. Rates of IE before and after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance were available to estimate prophylactic efficacy. AP adverse event rates were derived from recent UK data, and resource implications were based on English Hospital Episode Statistics. Results: AP was less costly and more effective than no AP for all patients at risk of IE. The results are sensitive to AP efficacy, but efficacy would have to be substantially lower for AP not to be cost-effective. AP was even more cost-effective in patients at high risk of IE. Only a marginal reduction in annual IE rates (1.44 cases in high-risk and 33 cases in all at-risk patients) would be required for AP to be considered cost-effective at £20 000 ($26 600) per quality-adjusted life-year. Annual cost savings of £5.5 to £8.2 million ($7.3–$10.9 million) and health gains >2600 quality-adjusted life-years could be achieved from reinstating AP in England. Conclusions: AP is cost-effective for preventing IE, particularly in those at high risk. These findings support the cost-effectiveness of guidelines recommending AP use in high-risk individuals.

Abstract Objectives Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) administration prior to invasive dental procedures has been a leading focus of infective endocarditis prevention. However, there have been long-standing concerns about the risk of adverse drug reactions as a result of this practice. The objective of this study was to identify the incidence and nature of adverse reactions to amoxicillin and clindamycin prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis. Methods We obtained AP prescribing data for England from January 2004 to March 2014 from the NHS Business Services Authority, and adverse drug reaction data from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's Yellow Card reporting scheme for prescriptions of the standard AP protocol of a single 3 g oral dose of amoxicillin or a single 600 mg oral dose of clindamycin for those allergic to penicillin. Results The reported adverse drug reaction rate for amoxicillin AP was 0 fatal reactions/million prescriptions (in fact 0 fatal reactions for nearly 3 million prescriptions) and 22.62 non-fatal reactions/million prescriptions. For clindamycin, it was 13 fatal and 149 non-fatal reactions/million prescriptions. Most clindamycin adverse drug reactions were Clostridium difficile infections. Conclusions AP adverse drug reaction reporting rates in England were low, particularly for amoxicillin, and lower than previous estimates. This suggests that amoxicillin AP is comparatively safe for patients without a history of amoxicillin allergy. The use of clindamycin AP was, however, associated with significant rates of fatal and non-fatal adverse drug reactions associated with C. difficile infections. These were higher than expected and similar to those for other doses, durations and routes of clindamycin administration.