Orthopedic Infectious Diseases Online Library
Your search
Results 4 resources
-
Abstract. Cutibacterium acnes isolation from spine tissue can be challenging because the organism can represent a contaminant. There is a paucity of data regarding the role of C. acnes in non-hardware-associated vertebral osteomyelitis (VO). Herein we evaluate the clinical and microbiological characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with C. acnes VO. Data were retrospectively collected from adults with a positive spine culture for C. acnes at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (MN), from 2011 to 2021. Patients with spinal hardware and polymicrobial infections were excluded. Of the subjects, 16 showed radiological and clinical findings of VO: 87.5 % were male, the average age was 58 years (±15 SD), and back pain was the predominant symptom. Of the lesions, 89.5 % involved the thoracic spine. Of the subjects, 69 % had experienced an antecedent event at the site of VO. In five subjects, C. acnes was isolated after 7 d of anaerobic culture incubation. Thirteen subjects were treated with parenteral β-lactams, and three with oral antimicrobials, without any evidence of recurrence. Twenty-one subjects were not treated for VO, as C. acnes was considered a contaminant; at follow-up, none had evidence of progressive disease. C. acnes should be part of microbiological differential diagnosis in patients with suspected VO, especially in the context of a prior spinal procedure. Anaerobic spine cultures should undergo prolonged incubation to enable recovery of C. acnes. C. acnes VO may be managed with oral or parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Without clinical and radiological evidence of VO, a single positive culture of C. acnes from spine tissue frequently represents contaminants.
-
Recent data suggest that oral therapy can be effective for bone infections. We aim to assess the efficacy of an early switch to oral therapy (<2 weeks) compared to a non-early switch in bacterial native vertebral osteomyelitis. We conducted a cohort study at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (MN), between 2019–2021 combined with a systematic review, which queried multiple databases. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. The cohort study included 139 patients: two received an early switch. Of 3708 citations, 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in treatment failure (odds ratio = 1.073, 95 % confidence interval 0.370–3.116), but many studies presented high risk of bias. Current evidence is insufficient to conclude the proportion of patients with failure or relapse is different in the two groups. High-quality studies are warranted before early switch can be routinely recommended.
-
Background Native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVO) caused by Staphylococcus aureus is associated with high risk of treatment failure and increased morbidity. The role of rifampin-based therapy for the treatment of this condition is controversial. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the efficacy and safety of rifampin-based therapy for the treatment of S. aureus NVO. Methods We searched Cochrane, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published up to May 2023, focusing on adults with NVO treated with or without rifampin containing regimens. A random-effects model meta-analysis estimated relative risks (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Thirteen studies (two RCTs and 11 comparative cohort studies), comprising 244 patients with S. aureus NVO who received rifampin and 435 who did not were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that rifampin-based regimens were associated with lower risk of clinical failure (RD -14%; 95% CI: -19%, -8%; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; RR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.92, P = 0.02, I2 = 21%). Only one study reported on adverse events. All studies had a high or uncertain risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was rated as very low. Conclusion Adjunctive rifampin therapy might be associated with lower risk of S. aureus NVO treatment failure, however, the low certainty of evidence precludes drawing definitive conclusions that would alter clinical practice. A randomized trial is necessary to corroborate these findings.