gms | German Medical Science

GMS Infectious Diseases

Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG)

ISSN 2195-8831

Calculated parenteral initial treatment of bacterial infections: Bone and joint infections

Guideline Calculated parenteral initial therapy

  • corresponding author Mathias G. Vossen - Medizinische Universität Wien, Universitätsklinik für Innere Medizin I, Klinische Abteilung für Infektionen & Tropenmedizin, Allgemeines Krankenhaus Wien, Vienna, Austria
  • Rainer Gattringer - Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie, Klinikum Wels Grieskirchen, Wels, Austria
  • Florian Thalhammer - Klinische Abteilung für Infektiologie und Tropenmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria
  • Matthias Militz - Abteilung für Septische und Rekonstruktive Chirurgie, BG-Unfallklinik Murnau, Germany
  • Gunnar Hischebeth - Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Immunologie und Parasitologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Germany

GMS Infect Dis 2020;8:Doc10

doi: 10.3205/id000054, urn:nbn:de:0183-id0000540

This is the English version of the article.
The German version can be found at: http://www.egms.de/de/journals/id/2020-8/id000054.shtml

Published: March 26, 2020

© 2020 Vossen et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Abstract

This is the 10th chapter of the guideline “Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults – update 2018” in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience.

This chapter deals with bacterial Infections of bones, joints and prosthetic joints. One of the most pressing points is that after an initial empirical therapy a targeted antimicrobial which penetrates well to the point of infection and is tolerated well over the usually long duration of the therapy is chosen.


Introduction

Early diagnosis and adequate treatment are critical for progression and prognosis of bone and joint infections. These include radical surgical debridement, sequestrectomy or joint synovectomy, stabilization of fracture/pseudarthrosis and skin-soft tissue defect repair. Antibiotic treatment is indicated (Table 1 [Tab. 1]).

If possible, attempts should be made to obtain sample material for microbiological processing. This is especially true in the case of chronic osteomyelitis, in which there is no acute need for action and thus diagnosis should be the top priority. The removal of sample material from the bone, preferably before the start of antimicrobial therapy or after an antibiotic break lasting at least 2 weeks, is considered standard clinical procedure. If, in the case of acute osteomyelitis, calculated initial treatment has been started, the change to targeted treatment should take place as soon as the pathogens have been identified and the results of sensitivity testing are available [1], [2].

Traditionally, initial high-dose parenteral treatment is recommended. Sequential therapy is possible if adequate drug levels can be ensured with oral medication. Based on the available studies, initial high-dose oral treatment with clindamycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole can be carried out in cases of chronic osteomyelitis [3]. Doxycycline and tigecycline have very different penetration depending on the type of infected bone and should therefore only be used in special cases. A combination of rifampicin with fusidic acid has been used for a long time without any issues but can lead to low levels of fusidic acid through induction of CYP3A4 and should be used with restraint until further notice due to the risk resistance induction [4]. In the first two weeks, additional administration of fosfomycin may be considered, regardless of the origin of osteomyelitis [5], [6], [7]. The possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of out-patient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) should be discussed with the patient [8].

With regard to the choice of therapeutic agent, there appears to be no difference regarding treatment success or recurrence rate between bacteriostatic and bactericidal antimicrobial agents due to the long duration of treatment which is necessary in any case [9].


Hematogenous osteomyelitis

In osteomyelitis, there is an infection of the medullary cavity, with a distinction made between a post-traumatic/post-operative origin and a hematogenous origin. The pathogen spectrum in the hematogenous form varies according to age. In adulthood, monoinfections are dominated by Staphylococcus aureus, streptococci or enterobacteria.

Depending on the expected pathogen and local resistance situation, calculated treatment is started with a group 2 or 3 cephalosporin in combination with clindamycin or an aminopenicillin/beta-lactamase inhibitor (BLI). For staphylococcal infections, monotherapy with flucloxacillin or a group 1 cephalosporin is preferable. In principle, for flucloxacillin, as with all beta-lactams, continuous or more frequent dosing is preferable; however, experience shows that splitting the daily dose into 3 equal single doses (“q8” dosing) also results in adequate treatment success. In enterobacteria with resistance mechanisms, such as the formation of AmpC or extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), even a group 4 cephalosporin (only effective in case of infections by AmpC-producing pathogens) or a carbapenem must even be considered. The additional use of fosfomycin can be beneficial, especially in the first two weeks of treatment. As an alternative to beta-lactams, moxifloxacin can be used as monotherapy or a group 2 or 3 fluoroquinolone in combination with clindamycin.

Due to its high penetration into the bone, fusidic acid is also a good combination partner in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis.

The combination of fosfomycin with a cephalosporin may be considered, especially in complicated cases (for instance severe spondylodiscitis) [10].


Spondylodiscitis

Spondylodiscitis is a particular form of hematogenous osteomyelitis. As the name implies, in this form not only the vertebral body itself is infected but also the disc. Here, too, Gram-positive cocci dominate as infectious agents, in particular Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA). In cases where only the bone is affected, the disease is often associated with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In normal cases, treatment duration of 6 weeks is sufficient [11], [12]. The choice of antimicrobial agents is the same as for hematogenous osteomyelitis, as the pathogen is usually unknown before treatment starts. In addition to multiple blood cultures, an attempt to isolate the pathogens should also be made using CT-assisted puncture. If the origin is unclear, a focus search should be carried out. It should be noted that – although this was only noted in a retrospective analysis – there is a significantly higher recurrence rate with vancomycin compared to daptomycin in MRSA spondylodiscitis [13]. In addition, an orthopedic or spinal surgery consultation should always be requested to assess the need for additional surgical restoration and/or fitting of a corset to prevent vertebral body compression.


Post-traumatic/post-operative osteomyelitis

This develops post-traumatically (through direct contamination during trauma) or post-operatively (intra-operatively). Staphylococcus aureus is also the underlying pathogen in many cases, especially in post-operative osteomyelitis. However, mixed infections with streptococci, Enterobacteriaceae and anaerobes are also common. In some cases, Pseudomonas aeruginosa may also be considered the underlying cause in post-traumatic osteomyelitis.

Treatment must commence as early as possible in surgical debridement, the removal of any foreign bodies with bone stabilization and calculated initial antibiotic treatment. In any case the material obtained during debridement should be sent for microbiological analysis. For antimicrobial treatment, aminopenicillin/BLI (i.v.), a cephalosporin of group 2 or 3 (i.v.) or clindamycin are recommended. Where there is high risk of multidrug-resistant staphylococci, daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin or a high-dose cephalosporin of group 5 can be used. For the latter, however, there is little experience so far; there is in particular a question of possible resistance development due to the necessarily long duration of treatment [14], [15]. The use of vancomycin cannot be recommended because of its low bone penetration and simultaneously limited maximum serum levels due to the nephrotoxic risk. Rifampicin shows good penetration, both in the bones and in biofilms. It is therefore generally suitable as an additional treatment option. However, its use should be limited as far as possible to the treatment of foreign body-associated infections. When using linezolid, initially a higher dosage of up to 3x 0.6 g or a front-loading strategy of 2x 1.2 g can be considered. However, the expected higher efficacy should be weighed carefully against its potentially toxic effects [16], [17], [18].

Combination with fosfomycin during the first two weeks of treatment can bring added benefits. If Gram-positive pathogens are strongly suspected, out-patient intravenous treatment with a long acting glycopeptide such as dalbavancin or teicoplanin may also be considered. If there is a suspected or confirmed infection with P. aeruginosa, a Pseudomonas-effective cephalosporin (for example ceftazidime or cefepime) or piperacillin/tazobactam should be used.

In chronic osteomyelitis, the infected bone and any existing implants must be removed. Targeted antibiotic treatment should be carried out [19], [20].


Sternal osteomyelitis

Sternal osteomyelitis generally occurs post-operatively as a complication of a sternotomy but occasionally it can have a hematogenous origin. In essence, it is caused by Staphylococcus aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci, which are often multiresistant. However, there are also individual reports of fungal-associated sternal infections [21], [22]. Antibiotic treatment is initially high-dose with an isoxazolylpenicillin or a cephalosporin of group 1 or 2 in combination with clindamycin or fosfomycin. For infections with MRSA or methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci, such as Staphylococcus epidermidis, the use of daptomycin or linezolid is recommended [23]. Again, the use of a high-dose cephalosporin of group 5 is worth considering but so far this has hardly been tested [14].


Bacterial arthritis

The main cause of bacterial arthritis is iatrogenic infection. With regard to the prognosis, early infection should be differentiated from late infection. The pathogens are usually staphylococci or beta-hemolytic streptococci of groups A, B, C and G. Other pathogens such as Enterobacteriaceae and gonococci are rare. In addition to immediate surgical treatment, also with confirmation of diagnosis, calculated initial antibiotic treatment similar to that of post-operative osteomyelitis is recommended. If the pathogen is confirmed through a preceding puncture, treatment with antibiotics only may be considered sufficient for rare infections caused by salmonella or gonococci.


Endoprosthesis/foreign body-associated infections

60–70% of endoprosthesis infections develop within the first two years following implantation [24]. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci are the most common causes. Polymicrobial infections occur in about 15% of cases. Basically, there is a high risk of biofilm formation not only in endoprostheses but in any foreign body, especially of coagulase-negative staphylococci a high proportion of whom show resistance to multiple classes of antibiotics [25]. Propionibacterium acnes is found mainly in infected shoulder prostheses but it is ultimately difficult to rule out culture contamination [24].

Expansion or changes after radical surgical debridement and, ideally targeting specific pathogens, treatment with maximally high doses of antibiotics are the treatment of choice [26]. Extracted foreign bodies can be treated with ultrasound to improve the sensitivity of pathogen detection [27]. This can lead to pathogen diagnosis even in prosthesis loosening primarily interpreted as aseptic [28]. In early prosthesis infections (within the first 2[–4] weeks), even replacement of removable surfaces and surgical debridement followed by three to six months of biofilm-active drug treatment (rifampicin or high-dose daptomycin) may result in healing (“debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention [DAIR]”) [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Streptococcal infections show a greater tendency for healing than infections with Staphylococcus aureus [34]. Even in single-stage implant replacement, biofilm-active treatment should be administered over three months [35]. Following initial four to six-week intravenous treatment with an aminopenicillin/BLI, a group 1 or 2 cephalosporin or a glycopeptide, each in combination with rifampicin, further oral treatment should carried out with rifampicin in combination with a suitable fluoroquinolone (preferably levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) to prevent development of resistance to rifampicin. However, there is only one study about a small randomized controlled trial on the use of ciprofloxacin plus rifampicin for early prosthesis infections [36]. Nonetheless, group 3 fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin) and group 4 (moxifloxacin) should probably be considered superior to ciprofloxacin (group 2) [36], [37]. The correct dosage of rifampicin is uncontroversial. While often a dosage of 2x 0.3–0.45 g per day is recommended, there are also pharmacokinetic arguments for a dosage of 1x 0.6 g [36], [38], [39]. The combination of daptomycin plus rifampicin showed very good efficiency in tests with rats [40]. Fosfomycin has shown very good efficacy in the treatment of implant-associated MRSA osteomyelitis in animal tests but should not be used as monotherapy due to the rapid development of resistance [7], [41], [42]. Linezolid was discussed as an alternative treatment for late prosthesis infections [43]. Healing rates under exclusively conservative treatment are very low.


Notes

This is the tenth chapter of the guideline “Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults – update 2018” in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience.

Following the publication of the 1st version of the guideline in German, these dosage suggestions were updated by the working group (Table 1: Recommendations for the calculated antibiotic therapy of bone and joint infections): dalbavancin 1.5 g on day 1 and day 8, sufficient for 8 weeks INSTEAD OF dalbavancin 1 g as first dose, then 0.5 g once per week as a maintenance dose or 1.5 g every 15 days.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


References

1.
Podbielski A, Abele-Horn M, Bücker A, Devide A, Donat M, Ellenrieder M, Erbersdobler A, Frommelt L, Gärtner B, Haenle M, Heim A, Herrmann M, Hübner NO, Huppertz HI, Kohlschein P, Krenn V, Loderstädt U, Mittelmeier W, Modrow S, Redanz S, Trampuz A; Expertengremium Mikrobiologisch-Infektiologische Qualitätsstandards; Qualitätssicherungskommission der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie. Mikrobiologische Diagnostik der Arthritis und Osteomyelitis: Part 1. In: Podbielski A, Abele-Horn M, Herrmann M, Kniehl E, Mauch H, Rüssmann H; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Infektiologie; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Virologie, editors. Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektionlogischen Diagnostik (MIQ 18). 2nd ed. Munich: Elsevier, Urban & Fischer; 2014.
2.
Podbielski A, Abele-Horn M, Bücker A, Devide A, Donat M, Ellenrieder M, Erbersdobler A, Frommelt L, Gärtner B, Haenle M, Heim A, Herrmann M, Hübner NO, Huppertz HI, Kohlschein P, Krenn V, Loderstädt U, Mittelmeier W, Modrow S, Redanz S, Trampuz A; Expertengremium Mikrobiologisch-Infektiologische Qualitätsstandards; Qualitätssicherungskommission der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie. Mikrobiologische Diagnostik der Arthritis und Osteomyelitis: Part 2. In: Podbielski A, Abele-Horn M, Herrmann M, Kniehl E, Mauch H, Rüssmann H; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Infektiologie; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Virologie, editors. Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektionlogischen Diagnostik (MIQ 18). 2nd ed. Munich: Elsevier, Urban & Fischer; 2014.
3.
Spellberg B, Lipsky BA. Systemic antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Feb;54(3):393-407. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir842 External link
4.
Fernandes P. Fusidic Acid: A Bacterial Elongation Factor Inhibitor for the Oral Treatment of Acute and Chronic Staphylococcal Infections. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016 Jan;6(1):a025437. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a025437 External link
5.
Corti N, Sennhauser FH, Stauffer UG, Nadal D. Fosfomycin for the initial treatment of acute haematogenous osteomyelitis. Arch Dis Child. 2003; 88(6):512-6. DOI: 10.1136/adc.88.6.512 External link
6.
Fernandez-Valencia JE, Saban T, Cañedo T, Olay T. Fosfomycin in Osteomyelitis. Chemotherapy. 1976;22(2):121-34. DOI: 10.1159/000221921 External link
7.
Poeppl W, Lingscheid T, Bernitzky D, Schwarze UY, Donath O, Perkmann T, Kozakowski N, Plasenzotti R, Reznicek G, Burgmann H. Efficacy of fosfomycin compared to vancomycin in treatment of implant-associated chronic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 Sep;58(9):5111-6. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02720-13 External link
8.
Esposito S, Leone S, Noviello S, Ianniello F, Fiore M, Russo M, Foti G, Carpentieri MS, Cellesi C, Zanelli G, Cellini A, Girmenia C, De Lalla F, Maiello A, Maio P, Marranconi F, Sabbatani S, Pantaleoni M, Ghinelli F, Soranzo ML, Vigano P, Re T, Viale P, Scudeller L, Scaglione F, Vullo V. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy for bone and joint infections: an italian multicenter study. J Chemother. 2007 Aug;19(4):417-22. DOI: 10.1179/joc.2007.19.4.417 External link
9.
Betz M, Landelle C, Lipsky BA, Uçkay I. Letter to the editor concerning the review of Prof. Sheldon L. Kaplan “Recent lessons for the management of bone and joint infections” - Bacteriostatic or bactericidal agents in osteoarticular infections? J Infect. 2015 Jul;71(1):144-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.02.014 External link
10.
Scheffer D, Hofmann S, Pietsch M, Wenisch C. Infektionen in der Orthopädie und Traumatologie: Pathogenese und Therapie. Orthopäde. 2008;37(7):709-20. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-008-1301-x External link
11.
Bernard L, Dinh A, Ghout I, Simo D, Zeller V, Issartel B, Le Moing V, Belmatoug N, Lesprit P, Bru JP, Therby A, Bouhour D, Dénes E, Debard A, Chirouze C, Fèvre K, Dupon M, Aegerter P, Mulleman D; Duration of Treatment for Spondylodiscitis (DTS) study group. Antibiotic treatment for 6 weeks versus 12 weeks in patients with pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Mar 7;385(9971):875-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14) 61233-2 External link
12.
Roblot F, Besnier JM, Juhel L, Vidal C, Ragot S, Bastides F, Le Moal G, Godet C, Mulleman D, Azaïs I, Becq-Giraudon B, Choutet P. Optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in vertebral osteomyelitis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Apr;36(5):269-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2006.09.004 External link
13.
Rangaraj G, Cleveland KO, Gelfand MS. Comparative analysis of daptomycin and vancomycin in the treatment of vertebral osteomyelitis. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2014;22(4):219-22. DOI: 10.1097/IPC.0000000000000116 External link
14.
Moenster RP, Linneman TW, Call WB, Kay CL, McEvoy TA, Sanders JL. The potential role of newer gram-positive antibiotics in the setting of osteomyelitis of adults. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013 Apr;38(2):89-96. DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12030 External link
15.
Sanchez EH, Mendes RE, Sader HS, Allison GM. In vivo emergence of ceftaroline resistance during therapy for MRSA vertebral osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 06;71(6):1736-8. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkw001 External link
16.
Lopez-Garcia B, Luque S, Roberts JA, Grau S. Pharmacokinetics and preliminary safety of high dose linezolid for the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections. J Infect. 2015 Nov;71(5):604-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.06.007 External link
17.
Pea F, Viale P, Cojutti P, Del Pin B, Zamparini E, Furlanut M. Therapeutic drug monitoring may improve safety outcomes of long-term treatment with linezolid in adult patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Aug;67(8):2034-42. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dks153 External link
18.
Tsuji BT, Bulitta JB, Brown T, Forrest A, Kelchlin PA, Holden PN, Peloquin CA, Skerlos L, Hanna D. Pharmacodynamics of early, high-dose linezolid against vancomycin-resistant enterococci with elevated MICs and pre-existing genetic mutations. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Sep;67(9):2182-90. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dks201 External link
19.
García-Lechuz J, Bouza E. Treatment recommendations and strategies for the management of bone and joint infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009 Jan;10(1):35-55. DOI: 10.1517/14656560802611766 External link
20.
Kaplan SL. Challenges in the Evaluation and Management of Bone and Joint Infections and the Role of New Antibiotics for Gram Positive Infections. In: Finn A, Curtis N, Pollard AJ, editors. Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children V. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 111-20. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; 634). DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-79838-7 External link
21.
Gabrielli E, Fothergill AW, Brescini L, Sutton DA, Marchionni E, Orsetti E, Staffolani S, Castelli P, Gesuita R, Barchiesi F. Osteomyelitis caused by Aspergillus species: a review of 310 reported cases. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014; 20(6):559-65. DOI: 10.1111/1469-0691.12389 External link
22.
Gamaletsou MN, Kontoyiannis DP, Sipsas NV, Moriyama B, Alexander E, Roilides E, Brause B, Walsh TJ. Candida osteomyelitis: analysis of 207 pediatric and adult cases (1970-2011). Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov;55(10):1338-51. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis660 External link
23.
Schimmer C, Sommer SP, Bensch M, Elert O, Leyh R. Management of poststernotomy mediastinitis: experience and results of different therapy modalities. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 56(4):200-4. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1038386 External link
24.
Tande AJ, Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014 Apr;27(2):302-45. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00111-13 External link
25.
Bogut A, Niedźwiadek J, Strzelec-Nowak D, Blacha J, Mazurkiewicz T, Marczyński W, Kozioł-Montewka M. Infectious prosthetic hip joint loosening: bacterial species involved in its aetiology and their antibiotic resistance profiles against antibiotics recommended for the therapy of implant-associated infections. New Microbiol. 2014 Apr;37(2):209-18.
26.
Matthews PC, Berendt AR, McNally MA, Byren I. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection. BMJ. 2009 May;338:b1773. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b1773 External link
27.
Borens O, Yusuf E, Steinrücken J, Trampuz A. Accurate and early diagnosis of orthopedic device-related infection by microbial heat production and sonication. J Orthop Res. 2013 Nov;31(11):1700-3. DOI: 10.1002/jor.22419 External link
28.
Kempthorne JT, Ailabouni R, Raniga S, Hammer D, Hooper G. Occult Infection in Aseptic Joint Loosening and the Diagnostic Role of Implant Sonication. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:946215. DOI: 10.1155/2015/946215 External link
29.
Kazimoglu C, Yalcin N, Onvural B, Akcay S, Agus H. Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention (DAIR) of the prosthesis after hip hemiarthroplasty infections. Does it work? Int J Artif Organs. 2015 Aug;38(8):454-60. DOI: 10.5301/ijao.5000430 External link
30.
Puhto AP, Puhto T, Niinimäki T, Ohtonen P, Leppilahti J, Syrjälä H. Predictors of treatment outcome in prosthetic joint infections treated with prosthesis retention. Int Orthop. 2015 Sep;39(9):1785-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2819-2 External link
31.
Tschudin-Sutter S, Frei R, Dangel M, Jakob M, Balmelli C, Schaefer DJ, Weisser M, Elzi L, Battegay M, Widmer AF. Validation of a treatment algorithm for orthopaedic implant-related infections with device-retention-results from a prospective observational cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May;22(5):457.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.01.004 External link
32.
Perrottet N, Steinrücken J, Chan M, Pannatier A, Borens O, Yusuf E, Trampuz A. Efficacy and safety of high-dose daptomycin (>6 mg/kg) for complicated bone and joint infections and implant-associated infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015 Oct;46(4):480-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.06.009 External link
33.
El Haj C, Murillo O, Ribera A, Vivas M, Garcia-Somoza D, Tubau F, Cabo J, Ariza J. Comparative efficacies of cloxacillin-daptomycin and the standard cloxacillin-rifampin therapies against an experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 Sep;58(9):5576-80. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02681-14 External link
34.
Betz M, Abrassart S, Vaudaux P, Gjika E, Schindler M, Billières J, Zenelaj B, Suvà D, Peter R, Uçkay I. Increased risk of joint failure in hip prostheses infected with Staphylococcus aureus treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention compared to Streptococcus. Int Orthop. 2015 Mar;39(3):397-401. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2510-z External link
35.
Kleber C, Schaser KD, Trampuz A. Komplikationsmanagement bei infizierter Osteosynthese: Therapiealgorithmus bei periimplantären Infektionen [Complication management of infected osteosynthesis: Therapy algorithm for peri-implant infections]. Chirurg. 2015 Oct;86(10):925-34. DOI: 10.1007/s00104-015-0073-1 External link
36.
Zimmerli W, Widmer AF, Blatter M, Frei R, Ochsner PE. Role of rifampin for treatment of orthopedic implant-related staphylococcal infections: a randomized controlled trial. Foreign-Body Infection (FBI) Study Group. JAMA. 1998 May;279(19):1537-41. DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.19.1537 External link
37.
Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct;351(16):1645-54. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra040181 External link
38.
Fierer J. Dosing rifampin. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(1):161. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit186 External link
39.
Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Steckelberg JM, Rao N, Hanssen A, Wilson WR. Reply to Eisen and Denholm, Dauchy et al, Fierer, and Nguyen and Jones. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(1):162-4. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit189 External link
40.
El Haj C, Murillo O, Ribera A, Vivas M, Garcia-Somoza D, Tubau F, Cabellos C, Cabo J, Ariza J. Daptomycin combinations as alternative therapies in experimental foreign-body infection caused by meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015 Aug;46(2):189-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.04.004 External link
41.
Lingscheid T, Poeppl W, Bernitzky D, Veletzky L, Kussmann M, Plasenzotti R, Burgmann H. Daptomycin plus fosfomycin, a synergistic combination in experimental implant-associated osteomyelitis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Feb;59(2):859-63. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.04246-14 External link
42.
Kaase M, Szabados F, Anders A, Gatermann SG. Fosfomycin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from Germany. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52(6):1893-7. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.03484-13 External link
43.
Cobo J, Lora-Tamayo J, Euba G, Jover-Sáenz A, Palomino J, del Toro MD, Rodríguez-Pardo D, Riera M, Ariza J; Red Española para la Investigación en Patología Infecciosa (REIPI). Linezolid in late-chronic prosthetic joint infection caused by gram-positive bacteria. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 May;76(1):93-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.02.019 External link