Characteristics of prosthetic joint infections due to Enterococcus sp. and predictors of failure: a multi-national study

n/

Gram-negative prosthetic joint infection: outcome of a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention approach. A large multicentre study

AbstractWe aim to evaluate the epidemiology and outcome of gram-negative prosthetic joint infection (GN-PJI) treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), identify factors predictive of failure, and determine the impact of ciprofloxacin use on prognosis. We performed a retrospective, multicentre, observational study of GN-PJI diagnosed from 2003 through to 2010 in 16 Spanish hospitals. We define failure as persistence or reappearance of the inflammatory joint signs during follow-up, leading to unplanned surgery or repeat debridement >30 days from the index surgery related death, or suppressive antimicrobial therapy. Parameters predicting failure were analysed with a Cox regression model. A total of 242 patients (33% men; median age 76 years, interquartile range (IQR) 68–81) with 242 episodes of GN-PJI were studied. The implants included 150 (62%) hip, 85 (35%) knee, five (2%) shoulder and two (1%) elbow prostheses. There were 189 (78%) acute infections. Causative microorganisms were Enterobacteriaceae in 78%, Pseudomonas spp. in 20%, and other gram-negative bacilli in 2%. Overall, 19% of isolates were ciprofloxacin resistant. DAIR was used in 174 (72%) cases, with an overall success rate of 68%, which increased to 79% after a median of 25 months' follow-up in ciprofloxacin-susceptible GN-PJIs treated with ciprofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin treatment exhibited an independent protective effect (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13–0.40; p <0.001), whereas chronic renal impairment predicted failure (aHR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.14–5.77; p 0.0232). Our results confirm a 79% success rate in ciprofloxacin-susceptible GN-PJI treated with debridement, ciprofloxacin and implant retention. New therapeutic strategies are needed for ciprofloxacin-resistant PJI

Multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III study to evaluate the efficacy of cloxacillin plus fosfomycin versus cloxacillin alone in adult patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: Study protocol for the SAFO trial

Introduction Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia is a frequent condition, with high mortality rates. There is a growing interest in identifying new therapeutic regimens able to reduce therapeutic failure and mortality observed with the standard of care of beta-lactam monotherapy. In vitro and small-scale studies have found synergy between cloxacillin and fosfomycin against S. aureus. Our aim is to test the hypothesis that cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves higher treatment success than cloxacillin alone in patients with MSSA bacteraemia. Methods We will perform a superiority, randomised, open-label, phase IV-III, two-armed parallel group (1:1) clinical trial at 20 Spanish tertiary hospitals. Adults (=18 years) with isolation of MSSA from at least one blood culture =72 hours before inclusion with evidence of infection, will be randomly allocated to receive either cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous plus fosfomycin 3 g/6-hour intravenous or cloxacillin 2 g/4-hour intravenous alone for 7 days. After the first week, sequential treatment and total duration of antibiotic therapy will be determined according to clinical criteria by the attending physician. Primary endpoints: (1) Treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint comprising all the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA at day 7. (2) Treatment success at test of cure (TOC) visit: patient alive and no isolation of MSSA in blood culture or at another sterile site from day 8 until TOC (12 weeks after randomisation). We assume a rate of treatment success of 74% in the cloxacillin group. Accepting alpha risk of 0.05 and beta risk of 0.2 in a two-sided test, 183 subjects will be required in each of the control and experimental groups to obtain statistically significant difference of 12% (considered clinically significant). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge University Hospital (AC069/18) and from the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (AEMPS, AC069/18), and is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. The results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients and funders. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ

Spinal infection: state of the art and management algorithm

Spinal infection is a rare pathology although a concerning rising incidence has been observed in recent years. This increase might reflect a progressively more susceptible population but also the availability of increased diagnostic accuracy. Yet, even with improved diagnosis tools and procedures, the delay in diagnosis remains an important issue. This review aims to highlight the importance of a methodological attitude towards accurate and prompt diagnosis using an algorithm to aid on spinal infection management. METHODS: Appropriate literature on spinal infection was selected using databases from the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. RESULTS: Literature reveals that histopathological analysis of infected tissues is a paramount for diagnosis and must be performed routinely. Antibiotic therapy is transversal to both conservative and surgical approaches and must be initiated after etiological diagnosis. Indications for surgical treatment include neurological deficits or sepsis, spine instability and/or deformity, presence of epidural abscess and upon failure of conservative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A methodological assessment could lead to diagnosis effectiveness of spinal infection. Towards this, we present a management algorithm based on literature findings

Efficacy of Usual and High Doses of Daptomycin in Combination with Rifampin versus Alternative Therapies in Experimental Foreign-Body Infection by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ▿ †

The treatment of prosthetic joint infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) continues to be a challenge for the clinician. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacies of daptomycin at usual and high doses (equivalent to 6 and 10 mg/kg of body weight/day, respectively, in humans) and in combination with rifampin and to compare the activities to those of conventional anti-MRSA therapies. We used MRSA strain HUSA 304, with the following MICs and minimal bactericidal concentrations (MBCs), respectively: daptomycin, 1 μg/ml and 4 μg/ml; vancomycin, 2 μg/ml and 4 μg/ml; linezolid, 2 μg/ml and >32 μg/ml; and rifampin, 0.03 μg/ml and 0.5 μg/ml. In time-kill curves, only daptomycin and its combinations with rifampin achieved a bactericidal effect in log and stationary phases. For in vivo studies, we used a rat foreign-body infection model. Therapy was administered for 7 days with daptomycin at 100 mg/kg/day and 45/mg/kg/day, vancomycin at 50 mg/kg/12 h, rifampin at 25 mg/kg/12 h, and linezolid at 35 mg/kg/12 h, and each antibiotic was also combined with rifampin. Among monotherapies, daptomycin at 100 mg/kg/day and rifampin performed better than vancomycin and linezolid. In combination with rifampin, both dosages of daptomycin were significantly better than all other combinations, but daptomycin at 100 mg/kg/day plus rifampin achieved better cure rates at day 11 (P < 0.05) than daptomycin at 45 mg/kg/day plus rifampin. Resistant strains were found in monotherapies with rifampin and daptomycin at 45 mg/kg/day. In conclusion, daptomycin at high doses was the most effective monotherapy and also improved the efficacy of the combination with rifampin against foreign-body infections by MRSA. Clinical studies should confirm whether this combination may be considered the first-line treatment for foreign-body infections by MRSA in humans