Evidence Hub

Using the Comparing Oral versus Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (COPAT) Clinical Trial to Influence Institutional Practice Transformation Towards Earlier Transition to Oral Antibiotics

Juskowich JJ, Thompson JM, Bage SD, Palmateer KM, Guilfoose JA, Lastinger AM, Smith CL, Arcega VA et al.

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2026

2 citations

Abstract

Background: Extensive literature has established equivalent efficacy of early intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotic transition. However, there is variability in adoption across practice settings. Unlike Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) programs, Complex Outpatient Antimicrobial Therapy with Oral Agents (COpAT) programs face significant implementation science challenges. We used a clinical trial with broad enrollment criteria to determine the impact of early oral transition in a real-world setting and studied its influence on practice transformation.

Methods: Comparing Oral versus Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (COPAT) Trial was a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial at 5 hospitals in 1 rural health system. Patients who required 2 or more weeks of IV antibiotics (for all but central nervous system infections) were randomized 2:1 to experimental (early-oral) group or control (IV-only) group. Two primary outcomes and hypotheses were assessed at 3 months: early-oral group safety superiority and efficacy equivalence. Clinical cases of patients who completed the trial were presented at multiple forums.

Results: The trial was stopped early after two-thirds enrollment for a significant safety benefit. Early-oral group demonstrated a significantly lower adverse event rate (3.2% versus 6.5%, P = .02). Lower cumulative hazard for first study-related adverse event in early-oral group (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, .08-.75; P = .01) appeared to emerge…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free