Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in second-stage surgery in joint prosthesis infection treated with two-stage exchange. A multicenter case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: After two-stage exchange due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), the new prosthesis carries a high risk of reinfection (RePJI). There isn`t solid evidence regarding the antibiotic prophylaxis in 2nd-stage surgery. The objective of this study is to describe what antibiotic prophylaxis is used in this surgery and evaluate its impact on the risk of developing RePJI. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter case-control study in Spanish hospitals. The study included cases of PJI treated with two-stage exchange and subsequently developed a new infection. For each case, two controls were included, matched by prosthesis location, center, and year of surgery. The prophylaxis regimens were grouped based on their antibacterial spectrum, and we calculated the association between the type of regimen and the development of RePJI using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for possible confounding factors. RESULTS: We included 90 cases from 12 centers, which were compared with 172 controls. The most frequent causative microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis with 34 cases (37.8%). Staphylococci were responsible for 50 cases (55.6%), 32 of them (64%) methicillin-resistant. Gram-negative bacilli were involved in 30 cases (33.3%), the most common Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In total, 83 different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens were used in 2nd-stage surgery, the most frequent a single preoperative dose of cefazolin (48 occasions; 18.3%); however, it was most common a combination of a glycopeptide and a beta-lactam with activity against Pseudomonas spp (99 cases, 25.2%). In the adjusted analysis, regimens that included antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci AND Pseudomonas spp were associated with a significantly lower risk of RePJI (adjusted OR = 0.24; 95% IC: 0.09-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization in 2nd-satge surgery prophylaxis explains the wide diversity of regimens used in this procedure. The results suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis in this surgery should include an antibiotic with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci and Pseudomonas.

Dalbavancin real-life utilization among diabetic patients suffering from infections in Italy and Spain: The DALBADIA retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively describe the patterns of use of dalbavancin for treating infections in diabetic patients in Italian and Spanish standard clinical practice. METHODS: DALBADIA [NCT04959799] was a multicentre, observational, retrospective cohort study, conducted in Italy and Spain. The study enrolled 97 adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, treated with dalbavancin as per standard clinical practice for a Gram-positive bacterial infection or the Gram-positive component of a mixed infection. RESULTS: Dalbavancin was used to treat cellulitis (18/92 patients, 19.6%), followed by prosthetic joint infection (14 patients, 15.2%), endocarditis (13 patients, 14.1%), and primary bacteraemia (10 patients, 10.9%); 78/92 (84.8%) patients had Gram-positive infections only, and 14 (15.2%) had mixed infections. The most frequently isolated microorganisms were Staphylococcus aureus in 43 (55.8% of the patients with microbial isolation), 25.6% of which methicillin-resistant; Staphylococcus epidermidis in 13 (16.9%), 53.8% of which methicillin-resistant; Enterococcus faecalis in 11 (14.3%). The main reason for the dalbavancin choice was the intent to simplify the antibiotic regimen (81.5% of cases). A multidisciplinary team participated in the treatment choice process for 53 (57.6%) patients. Dalbavancin was given as first-line antibiotic in 34 (37.0%) patients and administered as one infusion in 32 (34.8%), and as two infusions in 39 (42.4%). In total, 57/62 (91.9%) eligible patients with available assessment were judged clinically cured or improved at the end of observation. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, dalbavancin was used in diabetic patients to treat ABSSSIs and other difficult-to-treat infections with a favourable safety profile and a high rate of positive clinical responses.

Description of reinfection of joint prosthesis after 2-stage replacement (infection of the 2nd stage prosthesis): A multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Two-stage exchange is the gold standard in the surgical management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, perioperative reinfections (RePJI) can occur to newly inserted prosthesis, which highlights the importance of an adequate antibiotic prophylaxis, although there is scarce evidence in this field. Our objective was to evaluate the characteristics of RePJI, its prognosis and the antibiotic prophylaxis that is commonly used in second-stage surgery. METHODS: Multicentric retrospective observational study in Spanish hospitals including patients with RePJI between 2009 and 2018. RESULTS: We included 92 patients with RePJI from 12 hospitals. The most frequent isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis in 35 cases (38.5%); 61.1% of staphylococci were methiciliin-resistant. In 12 cases (13%), the same microoganism causing the primary PJI was isolated in RePJI. When comparing with the microbiology of primary PJI, there were more cases caused by Gram-negative bacteria (the most frequent was Pseudomonas spp.) and less by Gram-positive bacteria. Failure occured in 69 cases (75%). There were 43 different courses of antibiotic prophylaxis after the second-stage surgery; the most frequent was a unique preoperative cefazolin dose, but most patients received prophylaxis before and after the second-stage surgery (61 cases). CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent microorganisms in RePJI are coagulase-negative staphylococci, although Gram-negative bacteria, especially Pseudomonas spp. are also common. There is a significant heterogeneity in antibiotic prophylaxis for a second-stage surgery. ReIPJI treatment has a high failure rate.

Safety and Tolerability of More than Six Days of Tedizolid Treatment.

Tedizolid has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in clinical trials; however, data concerning its tolerability in long-term treatments are scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the indications and to describe the long-term safety profile of tedizolid. A multicentric retrospective study of patients who received tedizolid for more than 6 days was conducted. Adverse events (AEs) were identified from patients' medical records and laboratory data. The World Health Organization causality categories were used to discern AEs that were probably associated with tedizolid. Eighty-one patients, treated with tedizolid 200 mg once daily for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 28 (14 to 59) days, were included; 36 (44.4%) had previously received linezolid. The most common reasons for selecting tedizolid were to avoid linezolid potential toxicities or interactions (53.1%) or due to previous linezolid-related toxicities (27.2%). The most common indications were off-label, including prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and respiratory infections (77.8%). Overall, 9/81 patients (11.1%) experienced a probably associated AE. Two patients (2.5%) developed gastrointestinal disorders, 1 (1.2%) developed anemia, and 6 developed thrombocytopenia (7.4%) after a median (IQR) duration of treatment of 26.5 (17 to 58.5) days. Four (5%) patients discontinued tedizolid due to AEs. Among 23 patients with chronic renal failure (CRF), the rate of myelotoxicity was 17.4%, and only 8.7% had to stop tedizolid; 20 out of 22 with previous linezolid-associated toxicity had no AE. Long-term tedizolid treatments had good tolerance with rates of gastrointestinal AE and hematological toxicity lower than those reported with linezolid, particularly in patients with CRF and in those with a history of linezolid-associated toxicity.