Rates and Predictors of Treatment Failure in Staphylococcus aureus Prosthetic Joint Infections According to Different Management Strategies: A Multinational Cohort Study-The ARTHR-IS Study Group.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines have improved the management of prosthetic joint infections (PJI). However, it is necessary to reassess the incidence and risk factors for treatment failure (TF) of Staphylococcus aureus PJI (SA-PJI) including functional loss, which has so far been neglected as an outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of SA-PJI was performed in 19 European hospitals between 2014 and 2016. The outcome variable was TF, including related mortality, clinical failure and functional loss both after the initial surgical procedure and after all procedures at 18 months. Predictors of TF were identified by logistic regression. Landmark analysis was used to avoid immortal time bias with rifampicin when debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) was performed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty cases of SA-PJI were included. TF rates after the first and all surgical procedures performed were 32.8% and 24.2%, respectively. After all procedures, functional loss was 6.0% for DAIR and 17.2% for prosthesis removal. Variables independently associated with TF for the first procedure were Charlson ≥ 2, haemoglobin < 10 g/dL, bacteraemia, polymicrobial infection and additional debridement(s). For DAIR, TF was also associated with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 and delay of DAIR, while rifampicin use was protective. For all procedures, the variables associated with TF were haemoglobin < 10 g/dL, hip fracture and additional joint surgery not related to persistent infection. CONCLUSIONS: TF remains common in SA-PJI. Functional loss accounted for a substantial proportion of treatment failures, particularly after prosthesis removal. Use of rifampicin after DAIR was associated with a protective effect. Among the risk factors identified, anaemia and obesity have not frequently been reported in previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, registration no. NCT03826108.

Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most virulent bacteria and frequently causes prosthetic joint infections.Knowledge of the treatment of this type of infection has advanced in recent years, and treatment guidelines have led to improved management. Typically, the successful treatment of these infections has been determined by clinical cure, that is, the symptoms of infection have disappeared, but has not taken into account loss of function (such as significant difficulties walking), which is critical for the patient's quality of life. Our aim in this study was to evaluate the success of current management strategies for S. aureus prosthetic joint infection, including recovery of functionality, and the factors that predict why some of these infections are not cured, to identify areas for improvement.In a multinational cohort of 128 patients with S. aureus prosthetic joint infection, rates of treatment failure were found to be high, with significant rates of loss of function, especially when the prosthesis needed to be removed. Loss of function was less frequent when the infection was initially treated with surgical cleaning without removal of the prosthesis, even when this procedure failed at first. We found that anaemia and obesity were associated with lower treatment success, and that the probability of treatment success increased when surgical cleaning without prosthesis removal was performed early, and when the antibiotic rifampicin was used in combination with another antibiotic.

Preoperative and perioperative risk factors, and risk score development for prosthetic joint infection due to Staphylococcus aureus: a multinational matched case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify the preoperative and perioperative risk factors associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections (PJI) and to develop and validate risk-scoring systems, to allow a better identification of high-risk patients for more efficient targeted interventions. METHODS: We performed a multicenter matched case-control study of patients who underwent a primary hip and knee arthroplasty from 2014 to 2016. Two multivariable models by logistic regression were performed, one for the preoperative and one for perioperative variables; predictive scores also were developed and validated in an external cohort. RESULTS: In total, 130 cases and 386 controls were included. The variables independently associated with S. aureus-PJI in the preoperative period were (adjusted OR; 95% CI): body mass index >30 kg/m2 (3.0; 1.9 to 4.8), resident in a long-term care facility (2.8; 1.05 to 7.5), fracture as reason for arthroplasty (2.7; 1.4 to 5.03), skin disorders (2.5; 0.9 to 7.04), previous surgery in the index joint (2.4; 1.3 to 4.4), male sex (1.9; 1.2 to 2.9) and American Society of Anesthesiologists index score 3 to 4 (1.8; 1.2 to 2.9). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.78). In perioperative model, the risk factors were the previous ones plus surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administered out of the first 60 minutes before incision (5.9; 2.1 to 16.2), wound drainage for >72 hours after arthroplasty (4.5; 1.9 to 19.4) and use of metal bearing material versus ceramic (1.9; 1.1 to 3.3). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83). The predictive scores developed were validated in the external cohort. DISCUSSION: Predictive scores for S. aureus-PJI were developed and validated; this information would be useful for implementation of specific preventive measures.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4-6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. SETTING: Twenty-six NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. RESULTS: Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was -1.38% (90% confidence interval -4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. LIMITATIONS: The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. FUTURE WORK: Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment of bone and joint infection usually requires a long course of antibiotics. Doctors usually give these by injection through a vein (intravenously) for the first 4­6 weeks, rather than by mouth (orally). Although intravenous (IV) administration is more expensive and less convenient for patients, most doctors believe that it is more effective. However, there is little evidence to support this. The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial set out to challenge this assumption. A total of 1054 patients from 26 UK hospitals were randomly allocated to receive the first 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy either intravenously or orally. Irrespective of the route of administration, the choice of antibiotic was left to an infection specialist so as to ensure that the most appropriate antibiotics were given. Patients were followed up for 1 year. Thirty-nine participants were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining 1015 participants, treatment failure occurred in 14.6% of those treated intravenously and 13.2% of those treated with PO antibiotics. This difference could easily have occurred by chance. Even if it was not by chance, the difference does not suggest that PO therapy is associated with worse outcomes than IV therapy and is too small to conclude that PO therapy is better than IV therapy. Participants in the IV group stayed in hospital longer and 10% of them had complications related to the IV line used for administering the antibiotics. In addition, their treatment was, overall, more expensive. We conclude that PO antibiotic therapy has no disadvantages for the early management of bone and joint infection. It is also cheaper and associated with fewer complications.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).