Oral vs Intravenous Antibiotics for Fracture-Related Infections
Authors: William T. Obremskey, Robert V. O’Toole, Saam Morshed, Paul Tornetta, Clinton K. Murray, Clifford B. Jones, Daniel O. Scharfstein, Tara J. Taylor, Anthony R. Carlini, Jennifer M. DeSanto, Renan C. Castillo, Michael J. Bosse, Madhav A. Karunakar, Rachel B. Seymour, Stephen H. Sims, David A. Weinrib, Christine Churchill, Eben A. Carroll, Holly T. Pilson, James Brett Goodman, Martha B. Holden, Anna N. Miller, Debra L. Sietsema, Philip F. Stahel, Hassan Mir, Andrew H. Schmidt, Jerald R. Westberg, Brian Mullis, Karl D. Shively, Robert A. Hymes, Sanjit R. Konda, Heather A. Vallier, Mary Alice Breslin, Christopher S. Smith, Colin V. Crickard, J. Spence Reid, Mitch Baker, W. Andrew Eglseder, Christopher LeBrun, Theodore Manson, Daniel C. Mascarenhas, Jason Nascone, Andrew N. Pollak, Michael G. Schloss, Marcus F. Sciadini, Yasmin Degani, Theodore Miclau, David B. Weiss, Seth R. Yarboro, Eric D. McVey, Reza Firoozabadi, Julie Agel, Eduardo J. Burgos, Vamshi Gajari, Andres Rodriguez-Buitrago, Rajesh R. Tummuru, Karen M. Trochez
Journal: JAMA Surgery (2025)

Importance Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a serious complication following fracture fixation surgery. Current treatment of FRIs entails debridement and 6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Lab data and retrospective clinical studies support use of oral antibiotics, which are less expensive and may have fewer complications than IV antibiotics. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment of FRI with oral vs IV antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants The POvIV multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted across 24 trauma centers in the US among patients aged 18 to 84 years who had fracture repair or arthrodesis with fixation with implants and developed an FRI without radiographic evidence of osteomyelitis. Patients were enrolled between March 2013 and September 2018 and followed up for 12 months after hospitalization for treatment of their FRI. Intervention Oral vs IV antibiotics following FRI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was number of surgical interventions, and the primary hypothesis was noninferiority of oral vs IV antibiotics with respect to the number of study injury–related surgical interventions by 1 year. Unadjusted modified intent-to-treat (mITT) and adjusted per-protocol (PP) analyses were prespecified. A post hoc adjusted mITT analysis was conducted to resolve discrepancies between the results of the prespecified mITT and PP analyses. Recurrence of a deep surgical site infection was a key secondary outcome. Results Among 233 total patients, mean (SD) age was 46.0 (13.9) years, and 53 patients were female (22.7%). The mean number of surgical interventions within 1 year was 1.3 and 1.1 for the oral and IV groups, respectively. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference with unadjusted mITT analysis was 0.59, which was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.67, indicating noninferiority of oral to IV antibiotics. Adjusted PP analysis did not support noninferiority of the number of reoperations. A post hoc adjusted mITT analysis also showed noninferiority. The treatment effects estimates for the key secondary outcome of reinfection showed a similar pattern as those for the primary outcome. Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective randomized clinical trial, oral antibiotic treatment was noninferior to IV treatment with respect to the primary outcome of number of surgical interventions based on mITT analysis. However, there is some uncertainty in these findings based on preplanned and post hoc secondary analyses. A similar pattern of treatment effect estimates was observed for the secondary outcome of recurrence of infection. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01714596