Early experience with linezolid for infections in orthopaedics

Clinical use of linezolid in periprosthetic joint infections - a systematic review

Introduction: The most common causative organism in periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is Gram-positive bacteria that are increasingly drug resistant. In these cases the use of linezolid may be warranted. However, there are conflicting reports regarding its role in antibiotic treatment of PJIs. The aim of this review is to gather and analyze clinical results and treatment details on linezolid in patients with PJIs. Methods: In August 2019, a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE (Pubmed and Ovid) and Cochrane Library was performed. A total of 504 records were screened, and a total of 16 studies including 372 patients treated with linezolid for a PJI were included in this review based on the PRISMA criteria and after quality analysis using the MINOR score and Newcastle–Ottawa scale, as well as assessing level of evidence. Pooling analysis as well as descriptive analysis was performed. Results: Based on the results from the studies included, infection control was achieved in 80 % (range 30 %–100 %) of patients after a mean follow-up period of 25 (range 2–66) months. The mean duration of treatment was 58 d intravenous and orally at a median dose of 600 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) (range 400–900 b.i.d.). A combination therapy with rifampicin was used in 53 % of patients. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infections were present in 29 % and resistant CoNS (coagulase-negative Staphylococcus) in 46 %. Adverse effects occurred in 33 % of cases, mostly anemia, thrombocytopenia and gastrointestinal complaints leading to treatment discontinuation in 9 %. However, great heterogeneity was found with respect to surgical treatment, diagnosis of infection and indication for linezolid. Discussion: Linezolid is an appropriate option for treatment of resistant Gram-positive organisms in PJIs. Most commonly 600 mg b.i.d. is used, and a combination with rifampicin appears feasible although one must consider individual increases in doses in these cases. However, adverse effects are common and there are limited data for long-term use and optimal antibiotic combinations or individual doses.

The History of Antibiotic Treatment of Osteomyelitis

Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis has evolved substantially over the past 80 years. Traditional teachings (eg, that antimicrobials must be given parenterally, selected based upon ratios of achieved bone vs serum drug levels, and continued for 4–6 weeks) are supported by limited data. New studies are challenging this dogma, however. In this review, we seek to contextualize the discussion by providing a narrative, chronologic review of osteomyelitis treatment spanning the pre-antibiotic era through the present day and by describing the quality of evidence supporting each component of traditional osteomyelitis therapy.

A commentary on the disparate perspectives of clinical microbiologists and surgeons: ad hoc antimicrobial use

Prosthetic joints and other orthopedic implants have improved quality of life for patients world-wide and the use of such devices is increasing. However, while infection rates subsequent to associated surgery are relatively low (<3%), the consequences of incidence are considerable, encompassing morbidity (including amputation) and mortality in addition to significant social and economic costs. Emphasis, therefore, has been placed on mitigating microbial risk, with clinical microbiologists and surgeons utilizing rapidly evolving molecular laboratory techniques in detection and diagnosis of infection, which still occurs despite sophisticated patient management. Multidisciplinary approaches are regularly adopted to achieve this. In this commentary, we describe an unusual case of Actinomyces infection in total hip arthroplasty and, in that context, describe the perspectives of the clinical microbiology and surgical teams and how they contrasted. More specifically, this case demonstrates an ad hoc approach to structured eradication of biofilms and intracellular bacteria related to biomaterials, as reflected in early usage of linezolid. This is a complex topic and, as described in this case, such accelerated treatment can be effective. This commentary focuses on the merits of such inadvisable use of potent antimicrobials amid the risk of diminishing valuable antimicrobial efficacy, albeit resulting in desirable patient outcomes.

Clinical experience with linezolid for the treatment of orthopaedic implant infections

Gram-positive cocci are commonly isolated in orthopaedic implant infections and their resistance to β-lactams and fluoroquinolones is increasing. The high oral bioavailability of linezolid makes it an attractive oral alternative to glycopeptides and its use has increased in the last decade. To evaluate experience with linezolid in orthopaedic implant infections a systematic review of the literature available in English was undertaken. Only those articles describing series of ≥10 patients with acute or chronic orthopaedic implant infections treated with linezolid and with a clear definition of diagnosis and outcome were selected. A total of 293 patients (79.9% had prosthetic joint infections) were analysed in the 10 articles included. The overall remission rate with at least 3 months of follow-up was 79.9%, depending on whether the implant was removed or not (94% versus 69.9%). The addition of rifampicin was described in only two articles and no significant difference was observed. Adverse events were frequent during prolonged administration of linezolid (34.3%), requiring treatment discontinuation in 12.8%. The most common event was anaemia (13.4%) followed by gastrointestinal symptoms (11.1%). In conclusion, linezolid seems a good oral treatment alternative for orthopaedic implant infections due to Gram-positive cocci resistant to β-lactams and fluoroquinolones. However, close monitoring of adverse events is required.

Clinical results of linezolid in arthroplasty and trauma MRSA related infections

AIM: To analyse the management of patients treated with linezolid for orthopaedic infections.

METHODS: Twenty-two patients with orthopaedic related infections receiving a course of linezolid were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were classified into either post trauma, post arthroplasty and non trauma related infections. A diagnosis of infection was based on clinical findings, positive microbiological specimens, and positive signs of infection on radiological imaging and raised inflammatory markers. Pathogens isolated, inflammatory markers both at presentation and at final follow up, length of linezolid treatment, adverse drug reactions, concomitant anti-microbial therapy, length of hospital stay and any surgical interventions were recorded.

RESULTS: Infections were classified as post arthroplasty (n = 10), post trauma surgery (n = 8) or non-trauma related infections (n = 4). Twenty patients (91%) underwent surgical intervention as part of their treatment. The number of required surgical procedures ranged from 1 to 6 (mean = 2.56). Mean total length of stay per admission was 28.5 d (range 1-160 d). Furthermore, the mean duration of treatment with linezolid of patients who had resolution of symptoms was 31 d (range 10-84 d). All patients within this group were discharged on oral linezolid. Pathogens isolated included methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase negative staphylococci, coliforms, enterococcus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, streptococcus viridans, Escherichia coli, group B streptococcus and pseudomonas. An overall 77% of patients demonstrated resolution of infections at follow-up, with mean C-reactive protein reducing from 123 mg/L to 13.2 mg/L.

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the use of linezolid offers excellent efficacy in orthopaedic related infections when used alongside appropriate surgical management.

MRSA new treatments on the horizon: current status

There is a choice of anti-MRSA antibiotic available with proven efficacy in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI). Additional anti-MRSA antibiotics are in development, which have the potential to influence how such infections are managed. The emergence of resistance to current anti-MRSA agents, toxicity, and general lack of oral agents with proven efficacy for deep seated infection justify the development of new agents. However, there is a relative dearth of information specific to patients with orthopaedic-related infection. Combination therapy is often used in these patients, although there is a paucity of controlled trial data to support particular antibiotic combinations. As the choice of anti-MRSA agents increases, so does the need to identify which are best for the large variety of infections included in the group of cSSSIs. This is particular true for infections occurring in orthopaedic patients where poorly vascularised tissue, trauma or implanted prosthetic material, pose specific challenges.

Factors governing the healing of Staphylococcus aureus infections following hip and knee prosthesis implantation: a retrospective study of 95 patients

INTRODUCTION

The prognostic factors for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections are poorly known, notably because of the heterogeneous management in terms of both antibiotic administration and adopted surgical strategy. Uniform treatment regimens would make it easier to define the outcome of these S. aureus infections.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2001 and 2006, 95 patients with a S. aureus joint infection after THA or TKA were treated, strictly following a standardized protocol according to the recommendations of Zimmerli et al. The patients' mean age was 65.7 years, 71 with THA and 28 with TKA (four patients had two infected joints). These 95 patients presented 120 infectious episodes, all of whom had surgical treatment: 53 lavages (44.1%), 17 one-stage prosthesis revisions (14.2%), 29 two-stage prosthesis revisions (24.2%), and 21 prostheses removed (17.5%). On the intraoperative samples taken, methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) was isolated in 88 patients (73.3%) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in 18 patients (15%); finally 14 patients were included because of the positive results of preoperative samples taken. Twenty-seven infections (22.5%) were multibacterial, including at least S. aureus and 93 were single S. aureus bacteria. Success was defined at a minimum 12 months of follow-up by the association of the following parameters: normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and/or C-reactive protein (CRP) results, noninflammatory scar with no fistula, no surgical revision, and no antibiotic treatment.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 38±24.9 months, 81 of the 120 infectious episodes were resolved (67.5%) and 77 of the 95 patients were healed (81%). Six parameters significantly influenced the healing of the infection: initial cementless fixation, THA, preoperative knowledge of the bacterium, immediate postoperative antibiotic therapy adapted to the microbiological data, changing the prosthesis, and monobacterial infection. Only the latter two were independent, with an odds ratio of 5 (1.6-14.9) and 2.9 (1.1-7.7) respectively. However, resistance to methicillin did not appear to be a factor of failure.

DISCUSSION

Management of prosthetic S. aureus infections according to a uniform protocol in a specialized medical center healed the infection in 81% of the patients. Treatment improvement requires knowledge of the bacterium, adaptation of immediate probabilistic antibiotic therapy, and preference for changing the prosthesis over simple lavage.

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.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infected pseudo-arthrosis of the distal tibia treated with debridement, mesh cage, autologous grafting and locking plate fixation

Infected non-union of long bones is a challenge to manage. It has a high morbidity and mortality. Treatment is very demanding and has a significant complication rate. Methicillin-resistant infected non-union has a higher morbidity and mortality compared to Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infection. Approximately half of all Staphylococci isolated in infected orthopaedic operations are caused by Methicillin-resistant S. aureus. We present a 42-year-old patient who had Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infected pseudo-arthrosis of the tibia that was treated with debridement, mesh cage, autologous bone-grafting, and plating of the tibia. The outcome was satisfactory despite residual limb deformity and discrepancy.

Comparison of the efficacy of tigecycline and teicoplanin in an experimental methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis model

We evaluated the efficacy of tigecycline and teicoplanin in a rat model of MRSA osteomyelitis. Osteomyelitis was induced with an intramedullary injection of 10(8 )colony-forming units (cfu) of MRSA. After osteomyelitis formation was confirmed on Day 14, infected rats were randomly divided into three groups: tigecycline (n=13), teicoplanin (n=13), and no-treatment control (n=14). A 28-day antibiotic therapy with a subcutaneous injection of tigecycline (14 mg/kg twice daily) or intramuscular administration of teicoplanin (20 mg/kg daily) was administered. Rats were then sacrificed, and the tibias were harvested. The bones were weighed and then cultured. Our results indicated that bacterial growth was significantly reduced in teicoplanin and tigecycline groups, compared to the control group (p=0.019 and p=0.006, respectively). However, no difference was detected between the two antibiotic groups (p=1.000). No bacterial growth was detected in 7 out of 13 and 9 out of 13 specimens of the teicoplanin and tigecycline treated groups, respectively. Although this result was numerically in favor of tigecycline, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.427). In conclusion, tigecycline, a novel antibiotic, appears as an effective alternative to teicoplanin in the treatment of osteomyelitis caused by MRSA.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid for Gram-positive orthopedic infections: a prospective case series

Linezolid is an attractive alternative for orthopedic infections because of oral bioavailability and activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. To determine efficacy and safety, we prospectively monitored 51 consecutive adults who were not vancomycin candidates and who received linezolid for 53 Gram-positive orthopedic infections, usually chronic osteomyelitis (n = 25) or prosthetic joint infection (n = 23). Pathogens were usually Staphylococcus aureus (n = 27) or coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 19); 38 were methicillin resistant. After remission, 17 infections required long-term suppression, usually because of retained hardware. Clinical and microbiologic failure occurred in only one patient. The most common adverse events were thrombocytopenia (n = 5) and anemia (n = 5), necessitating treatment discontinuation in 3 patients. One patient developed reversible optic and irreversible peripheral neuropathy after 24 months of linezolid. Linezolid, with surgery, may be a reasonable alternative for Gram-positive orthopedic infections. We recommend weekly hematologic monitoring, and, if therapy lasts >2 months, periodic ophthalmologic monitoring.