Prolonged treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa osteomyelitis with a combination of two effective antibiotics

Emerging Concepts for the Treatment of Biofilm-Associated Bone and Joint Infections with IV Fosfomycin: A Literature Review

Due to the involvement of biofilms in the pathogenesis of bone and joint infections (BJI), the treatment of these infections is often challenging, especially when multidrug- or extensively drug-resistant (MDR/XDR) pathogens are involved. Intravenous fosfomycin (FOS) is a phosphoenolpyruvate analogue with a unique mode of action and broad-spectrum activity against both Gram-positive (GP) and Gram-negative (GN) pathogens. It is used in various severe and deep-seated infections, including BJIs. This review article focuses on preclinical and clinical data surrounding the use of FOS for biofilm-related BJIs. Data from several in vitro and animal models of infection demonstrated that FOS, especially in combination with other antibiotics, is effective against biofilms of (methicillin-resistant) Staphylococcus spp., (vancomycin-resistant) Enterococcus spp., carbapenem-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, and MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Data from clinical studies, mostly retrospective observational studies and case reports/case series, revealed that FOS was typically used in combination with other antibiotics for the treatment of various BJI, including acute and chronic osteomyelitis, prosthetic joint infections, and fracture-related infections, in adult and pediatric patients. Success rates often exceeded 80%. FOS exhibits good and fast penetration into bone tissue and is generally well tolerated, with only a few adverse drug reactions, such as gastrointestinal disorders and electrolyte imbalances. Collectively, the data indicate that FOS is a valuable option as part of combination regimens for the treatment of BJIs caused by both GP and GN bacteria.

Efficiency of combination therapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For resistant Gram-positive bacteria, evidence suggests that combination therapy is more effective. However, for resistant Gram-negative bacteria, no consensus has been reached. This study aims to comprehensively summarize the evidence and evaluate the impact of combination versus monotherapy on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 15, 2024, to identify relevant studies. This study included comparisons of monotherapy and combination therapy for treating infections caused by CRGNB. Topical antibiotics (i.e., inhalational or intratracheal administration) and monotherapy with sulbactam/relebactam was excluded. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were clinical success and microbiological eradication. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in order to systematically assess effect of treatment on mortality, clinical success and microbiological eradication. Subgroup analyses, publication bias tests, and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies, including 8342 participants, were analyzed, comprising 7 randomized controlled trials and 55 non-randomized studies. Monotherapy was associated with higher mortality (OR = 1.29, 95%CI: 1.11-1.51), lower clinical success (OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.98), and lower microbiological eradication (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.55-0.91) compared to combination therapy for CRGNB infections. Specifically, patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections receiving monotherapy had higher mortality (OR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.15-1.95), comparable clinical success (OR = 0.57,95%CI: 0.28-1.16), and lower microbiological eradication (OR = 0.48,95%CI:0.25-0.91) than those receiving combination therapy. For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections, no significant differences were observed in mortality (OR = 1.15.95%CI: 0.90-1.47), clinical success (OR = 0.95,95%CI: 0.74-1.24) and microbiological eradication (OR = 0.78,95%CI: 0.54-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy or combination therapy is controversial. The systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that monotherapy is associated with higher mortality, lower clinical success, and lower microbiological eradication for treating infection caused by CRGNB. The available evidence suggests that treatment should be selected based on the specific bacteria and antibiotic used. Monotherapy for CRE infections may lead to adverse outcomes. For CRAB infections, no significant differences were found between combination therapy and monotherapy.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022331861.

Systemic antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults

The standard recommendation for treating chronic osteomyelitis is 6 weeks of parenteral antibiotic therapy. However, oral antibiotics are available that achieve adequate levels in bone, and there are now more published studies of oral than parenteral antibiotic therapy for patients with chronic osteomyelitis. Oral and parenteral therapies achieve similar cure rates; however, oral therapy avoids risks associated with intravenous catheters and is generally less expensive, making it a reasonable choice for osteomyelitis caused by susceptible organisms. Addition of adjunctive rifampin to other antibiotics may improve cure rates. The optimal duration of therapy for chronic osteomyelitis remains uncertain. There is no evidence that antibiotic therapy for >4-6 weeks improves outcomes compared with shorter regimens. In view of concerns about encouraging antibiotic resistance to unnecessarily prolonged treatment, defining the optimal route and duration of antibiotic therapy and the role of surgical debridement in treating chronic osteomyelitis are important, unmet needs.

Remission after treatment of osteoarticular infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa versus Staphylococcus aureus: a case-controlled study

PURPOSE

Osteoarticular infections due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) or its methicillin-resistant variant (MRSA) are feared due to treatment failures. According to clinical experience, Pseudomonas aeruginosa may reveal less long-term remission than S. aureus.

METHODS

A case-controlled study comparing outcomes of osteoarticular infections due to P. aeruginosa vs S. aureus was performed at Geneva University Hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 111 S. aureus (including 37 MRSA) and 20 P. aeruginosa osteoarticular infections were analysed in 131 patients: arthroplasties (n = 38), fracture fixation devices (n = 56), native joint arthritis (n = 7) and osteomyelitis without implant (n = 30). The median active follow-up time was 4 years. The patients underwent a median number of two surgical interventions for P. aeruginosa infections compared to two for S. aureus (two for MRSA), while the median duration of antibiotic treatment was 87 days for P. aeruginosa and 46 days for S. aureus infections (58 days for MRSA) (all p > 0.05). Overall, Pseudomonas-infected patients tended towards a lower remission rate than those infected with S. aureus (12/20 vs 88/111; p = 0.06). This was similar when P. aeruginosa was compared with MRSA alone (12/20 vs 30/37; p = 0.08). In multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for case mix, odds ratios (OR) for remission were as follows: P. aeruginosa vs S. aureus [OR 0.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-1.2], number of surgical interventions (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-1.0) and duration of antibiotic treatment (OR 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a similar number of surgical interventions and longer antibiotic treatment, osteoarticular infections due to P. aeruginosa tended towards a lower remission rate than infections due to S. aureus in general or MRSA in particular.

Treatment recommendations and strategies for the management of bone and joint infections

Bone and joint infections are a cause of rising concern, mainly owing to the increasing number of traumatic accidents, the appearance of new groups of patients at risk, the widespread use of prosthetic devices and the emergence of new patterns of antimicrobial resistance. Treatment guidelines and particular strategies for the management of such infections are reviewed. Decisions regarding the best therapeutic modality can be challenging and take into account the factors involved in infection staging, along with a better knowledge of the bacterial biofilm status. Surgery and antibiotic therapy are the keystones of the management, but overall the timing and length of treatment and follow-up should be posed to obtain the best quality of life for the patient. These infections are characteristically intriguing and sometimes need multiple surgical interventions and several courses of therapy. A multi-disciplinary approach is worthwhile in each institution. The collaboration of a specialized team composed by surgeons, pathologists, microbiologists and clinicians will permit diagnostic and therapeutic protocol-guided decisions.

Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis: what have we learned from 30 years of clinical trials?

OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN

To determine the most appropriate approach to antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis, the medical literature for articles published from 1968 to 2000 was reviewed.

RESULTS

Ninety-three clinical trials in children and adults were identified using almost every antibiotic class. Most studies were non-comparative and the comparative trials involved relatively few patients. Publications generally did not provide clinically important information regarding infection staging or classification, surgical treatment provided, or the presence of orthopedic hardware. The median duration of follow-up after treatment was only 12 months. The clinical outcome was better for acute than chronic osteomyelitis in eight of the 12 studies allowing comparison. In the comparative trials, few statistically significant differences were observed between the tested treatments. In one small trial, the combination of nafcillin plus rifampin was more effective than nafcillin alone. In pediatric osteomyelitis, oral therapy with cloxacillin was more effective than tetracycline in one study, and oral clindamycin was as effective as parenteral anti-staphylococcal penicillins in another. In several investigations oral fluoroquinolones were as effective as standard parenteral treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy remains undefined, most investigators treated patients for about six weeks. Despite three decades of research, the available literature on the treatment of osteomyelitis is inadequate to determine the best agent(s), route, or duration of antibiotic therapy.