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 .).

Best practices for centers of excellence in addressing periprosthetic joint infection.

Periprosthetic joint infection is a rare and devastating complication. Management of this complication often requires a multidisciplinary approach similar to that used for the care of patients with cancer. Several studies have reported better outcomes following total joint arthroplasties performed at specialized hospitals than those performed at general hospitals. Specialized institutions use care pathways that aid the multidisciplinary team in decision making. During the recent Musculoskeletal Infection symposium, specific issues were discussed with regard to the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection, including medical optimization, systematic approaches to infection management, and the importance of establishing registries to aid in the creation of Centers of Excellence. A Center of Excellence in periprosthetic infection could provide better overall outcomes with lower financial, physical, and emotional costs to patients.

Clinical guidelines in the management of prosthetic joint infection.

Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection have been produced by a range of organizations. Guidelines stress the importance of multi-disciplinary working and of adopting a methodical approach. This includes careful assessment of the patient's surgical, medical and psychosocial problems, rational investigation, a decision-making framework for surgery and targeted, sometimes prolonged, use of intravenous or highly bioavailable oral antibiotics. Despite limited high-quality evidence, adoption of clinical guidelines can improve practice by reducing variation and by establishing conditions for the subsequent conduct of multicentre studies or systematic reviews.

2012 infectious diseases society of america clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

These guidelines are intended for use by infectious disease specialists, orthopedists, and other healthcare professionals who care for patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI). They include evidence-based and opinion-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with PJI treated with debridement and retention of the prosthesis, resection arthroplasty with or without subsequent staged reimplantation, 1-stage reimplantation, and amputation.

Executive summary: diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

These guidelines are intended for use by infectious disease specialists, orthopedists, and other healthcare professionals who care for patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI). They include evidence-based and opinion-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with PJI treated with debridement and retention of the prosthesis, resection arthroplasty with or without subsequent staged reimplantation, 1-stage reimplantation, and amputation.

Executive summary: 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

Serial measurement of the C-reactive protein is a poor predictor of treatment outcome in prosthetic joint infection.

OBJECTIVES: Prosthetic joint infection is usually treated using surgery and antibiotics. The response to the treatment regimen is often evaluated using serial monitoring of plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations. In order to examine how useful this monitoring is, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of CRP concentrations for predicting treatment failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 3732 CRP measurements from 260 patients who were treated by either two-stage revision or debridement and retention. We tested the association between CRP concentration and outcome using logistic regression models, and assessed sensitivity and specificity by using receiver operator curves. RESULTS: The areas under receiver operator curves for CRP concentrations predicting outcome ranged from 0.55 to 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: CRP concentrations did not accurately predict treatment failure. Serial monitoring may not be of benefit.

Native hip joint septic arthritis in 20 adults: delayed presentation beyond three weeks predicts need for excision arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: Septic arthritis of native hip joints is an uncommon condition in adults in Western Europe, but continues to present a challenge to medical and surgical management. We set out to study the natural history and bacteriology of the disease in this group, with a particular focus on patients requiring excision arthroplasty (EA). METHODS: We retrospectively studied 26 secondary referral cases (20 adults) managed by a specialist bone infection unit over a 12 year period. RESULTS: Our patient cohort was diverse, affecting all age groups in the presence and absence of co-morbid conditions. The commonest pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus. Of 20 adults studied, five (25%) required EA. Symptom duration prior to presentation was a statistical predictor of the requirement for EA (p<0.003); in particular, symptom duration of over three weeks was strongly associated with requirement for this procedure (p<0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: In cases that present promptly, combined surgical drainage and intravenous antibiotics should be expected to eradicate infection and to salvage the femoral head. Cases presenting following a delay are more likely to require EA and subsequent hip reconstruction.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT): is it safe for selected patients to self-administer at home? A retrospective analysis of a large cohort over 13 years.

OBJECTIVES: Provision of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is an evolving field, facilitating discharge from hospital for selected patients with serious infections. We report on a large OPAT cohort focusing on the practice of supervised parenteral antibiotic administration in the community by patients and relatives, which we collectively term 'self-administration'. To distinguish between healthcare professional OPAT and self-administered OPAT, we have coined the terms H-OPAT and S-OPAT, respectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed data on 2059 OPAT episodes collected prospectively over a 13 year time period from 1993 to 2005. RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis, microbiology and antibiotics in this OPAT series are comparable to those previously reported. We identified no excess complications or hospital re-admissions in the S-OPAT group compared with the H-OPAT group. CONCLUSIONS: Self-administration of intravenous antimicrobial therapy, in selected patients under the supervision of a specialist team, is a safe and feasible strategy.

Clinical management of diabetic foot infection: diagnostics, therapeutics and the future.

Diabetic foot infection accounts for a substantial global burden of morbidity, psychosocial disruption and economic cost. Recommendations for best practice are continuously evolving in parallel with improvements in imaging modalities, development and clinical use of new antimicrobial agents and data surrounding novel adjunctive strategies. We discuss this complex group of infections with a particular emphasis on medical management of osteomyelitis, while also highlighting the importance of a broad multidisciplinary approach to eradicating infection.

Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. Foot infections in patients with diabetes cause substantial morbidity and frequent visits to health care professionals and may lead to amputation of a lower extremity. 2. Diabetic foot infections require attention to local (foot) and systemic (metabolic) issues and coordinated management, preferably by a multidisciplinary foot-care team (A-II). The team managing these infections should include, or have ready access to, an infectious diseases specialist or a medical microbiologist (B-II). 3. The major predisposing factor to these infections is foot ulceration, which is usually related to peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral vascular disease and various immunological disturbances play a secondary role. 4. Aerobic Gram-positive cocci (especially Staphylococcus aureus) are the predominant pathogens in diabetic foot infections. Patients who have chronic wounds or who have recently received antibiotic therapy may also be infected with Gram-negative rods, and those with foot ischemia or gangrene may have obligate anaerobic pathogens. 5. Wound infections must be diagnosed clinically on the basis of local (and occasionally systemic) signs and symptoms of inflammation. Laboratory (including microbiological) investigations are of limited use for diagnosing infection, except in cases of osteomyelitis (B-II). 6. Send appropriately obtained specimens for culture before starting empirical antibiotic therapy in all cases of infection, except perhaps those that are mild and previously untreated (B-III). Tissue specimens obtained by biopsy, ulcer curettage, or aspiration are preferable to wound swab specimens (A-I). 7. Imaging studies may help diagnose or better define deep, soft-tissue purulent collections and are usually needed to detect pathological findings in bone. Plain radiography may be adequate in many cases, but MRI (in preference to isotope scanning) is more sensitive and specific, especially for detection of soft-tissue lesions (A-I). 8. Infections should be categorized by their severity on the basis of readily assessable clinical and laboratory features (B-II). Most important among these are the specific tissues involved, the adequacy of arterial perfusion, and the presence of systemic toxicity or metabolic instability. Categorization helps determine the degree of risk to the patient and the limb and, thus, the urgency and venue of management. 9. Available evidence does not support treating clinically uninfected ulcers with antibiotic therapy (D-III). Antibiotic therapy is necessary for virtually all infected wounds, but it is often insufficient without appropriate wound care. 10. Select an empirical antibiotic regimen on the basis of the severity of the infection and the likely etiologic agent(s) (B-II). Therapy aimed solely at aerobic Gram-positive cocci may be sufficient for mild-to-moderate infections in patients who have not recently received antibiotic therapy (A-II). Broad-spectrum empirical therapy is not routinely required but is indicated for severe infections, pending culture results and antibiotic susceptibility data (B-III). Take into consideration any recent antibiotic therapy and local antibiotic susceptibility data, especially the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or other resistant organisms. Definitive therapy should be based on both the culture results and susceptibility data and the clinical response to the empirical regimen (C-III). 11. There is only limited evidence with which to make informed choices among the various topical, oral, and parenteral antibiotic agents. Virtually all severe and some moderate infections require parenteral therapy, at least initially (C-III). Highly bioavailable oral antibiotics can be used in most mild and in many moderate infections, including some cases of osteomyelitis (A-II). Topical therapy may be used for some mild superficial infections (B-I). 12. Continue antibiotic therapy until there is evidence that the infection has resolved but not necessarily until a wound has healed. Suggestions for the duration of antibiotic therapy are as follows: for mild infections, 12 weeks usually suffices, but some require an additional 12 weeks; for moderate and severe infections, usually 24 weeks is sufficient, depending on the structures involved, the adequacy of debridement, the type of soft-tissue wound cover, and wound vascularity (A-II); and for osteomyelitis, generally at least 46 weeks is required, but a shorter duration is sufficient if the entire infected bone is removed, and probably a longer duration is needed if infected bone remains (B-II). 13. If an infection in a clinically stable patient fails to respond to 1 antibiotic courses, consider discontinuing all antimicrobials and, after a few days, obtaining optimal culture specimens (C-III). 14. Seek surgical consultation and, when needed, intervention for infections accompanied by a deep abscess, extensive bone or joint involvement, crepitus, substantial necrosis or gangrene, or necrotizing fasciitis (A-II). Evaluating the limb's arterial supply and revascularizing when indicated are particularly important. Surgeons with experience and interest in the field should be recruited by the foot-care team, if possible. 15. Providing optimal wound care, in addition to appropriate antibiotic treatment of the infection, is crucial for healing (A-I). This includes proper wound cleansing, debridement of any callus and necrotic tissue, and, especially, off-loading of pressure. There is insufficient evidence to recommend use of a specific wound dressing or any type of wound healing agents or products for infected foot wounds. 16. Patients with infected wounds require early and careful follow-up observation to ensure that the selected medical and surgical treatment regimens have been appropriate and effective (B-III). 17. Studies have not adequately defined the role of most adjunctive therapies for diabetic foot infections, but systematic reviews suggest that granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy may help prevent amputations (B-I). These treatments may be useful for severe infections or for those that have not adequately responded to therapy, despite correcting for all amenable local and systemic adverse factors. 18. Spread of infection to bone (osteitis or osteomyelitis) may be difficult to distinguish from noninfectious osteoarthropathy. Clinical examination and imaging tests may suffice, but bone biopsy is valuable for establishing the diagnosis of osteomyelitis, for defining the pathogenic organism(s), and for determining the antibiotic susceptibilities of such organisms (B-II). 19. Although this field has matured, further research is much needed. The committee especially recommends that adequately powered prospective studies be undertaken to elucidate and validate systems for classifying infection, diagnosing osteomyelitis, defining optimal antibiotic regimens in various situations, and clarifying the role of surgery in treating osteomyelitis (A-III).

Is this bone infected or not? Differentiating neuro-osteoarthropathy from osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.

Osteomyelitis (bone infection) and neuro-osteoarthropathy (Charcot arthropathy) are limb-threatening complications of diabetic neuropathy with very different therapies. Distinguishing between them may be difficult, but it is important. In Charcot arthropathy, noninfectious soft tissue inflammation accompanies rapidly progressive destruction, first of joints, then of bone. This occurs in a well-vascularized and severely neuropathic, but nonulcerated, foot. In osteomyelitis, chronic soft tissue ulceration precedes infection of bone, which may be physically exposed. Magnetic resonance imaging and bone biopsy are the preferred diagnostic tests, provided adequate technical and interpretive skills are available.

Lack of association between Toll-like receptor 2 polymorphisms and susceptibility to severe disease caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

To investigate a putative link between genetically determined variations in Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) and the occurrence of severe Staphylococcus aureus infection, the functional Arg753Gln single-nucleotide polymorphism and the GT repeat microsatellite in the TLR2 gene were examined in a large case-control study. No associations with disease or mortality attributable to these features were found.