Photoimmuno-antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus implant infection.

INTRODUCTION: Implant infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus are responsible for high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Treatment of these infections can be difficult especially when bacterial biofilms are involved. In this study we investigate the potential of infrared photoimmunotherapy to eradicate staphylococcal infection in a mouse model. METHODS: A monoclonal antibody that targets Wall Teichoic Acid surface components of both S. aureus and its biofilm (4497-IgG1) was conjugated to a photosensitizer (IRDye700DX) and used as photoimmunotherapy in vitro and in vivo in mice with a subcutaneous implant pre-colonized with biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus. A dose of 400 µg and 200 µg of antibody-photosensitizer conjugate 4497-IgG-IRDye700DXwas administered intravenously to two groups of 5 mice. In addition, multiple control groups (vancomycin treated, unconjugated IRDye700DX and IRDye700DX conjugated to a non-specific antibody) were used to verify anti-microbial effects. RESULTS: In vitro results of 4497-IgG-IRDye700DX on pre-colonized (biofilm) implants showed significant (p<0.01) colony-forming units (CFU) reduction at a concentration of 5 µg of the antibody-photosensitizer conjugate. In vivo, treatment with 4497-IgG-IRDye700DX showed no significant CFU reduction at the implant infection. However, tissue around the implant did show a significant CFU reduction with 400 µg 4497-IgG-IRDye700DX compared to control groups (p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the antimicrobial potential of photoimmunotherapy for selectively eliminating S. aureus in vivo. However, using a solid implant instead of a catheter could result in an increased bactericidal effect of 4497-IgG-IRDye700DX and administration locally around an implant (per operative) could become valuable applications in patients that are difficult to treat with conventional methods. We conclude that photoimmunotherapy could be a potential additional therapy in the treatment of implant related infections, but requires further improvement.

Evaluating the Targeting of a Staphylococcus-aureus-Infected Implant with a Radiolabeled Antibody In Vivo.

Implant infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus are difficult to treat due to biofilm formation, which complicates surgical and antibiotic treatment. We introduce an alternative approach using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting S. aureus and provide evidence of the specificity and biodistribution of S.-aureus-targeting antibodies in a mouse implant infection model. The monoclonal antibody 4497-IgG1 targeting wall teichoic acid in S. aureus was labeled with indium-111 using CHX-A"-DTPA as a chelator. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography/computed tomographyscans were performed at 24, 72 and 120 h after administration of the 111In-4497 mAb in Balb/cAnNCrl mice with a subcutaneous implant that was pre-colonized with S. aureus biofilm. The biodistribution of this labelled antibody over various organs was visualized and quantified using SPECT/CT imaging, and was compared to the uptake at the target tissue with the implanted infection. Uptake of the 111In-4497 mAbs at the infected implant gradually increased from 8.34 %ID/cm3 at 24 h to 9.22 %ID/cm3 at 120 h. Uptake at the heart/blood pool decreased over time from 11.60 to 7.58 %ID/cm3, whereas the uptake in the other organs decreased from 7.26 to less than 4.66 %ID/cm3 at 120 h. The effective half-life of 111In-4497 mAbs was determined to be 59 h. In conclusion, 111In-4497 mAbs were found to specifically detect S. aureus and its biofilm with excellent and prolonged accumulation at the site of the colonized implant. Therefore, it has the potential to serve as a drug delivery system for the diagnostic and bactericidal treatment of biofilm.

A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate. RESULTS: 128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure. INTERPRETATION: There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Long-term outcome of two-stage revision surgery after hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: an observational study.

Introduction: Two-stage revision surgery is the most frequently performed procedure in patients with a chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The infection eradication rates in the current literature differ between 54 % and 100 %, which could be attributed to different treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the infection eradication rate in patients with chronic PJI treated with two-stage revision surgery of the hip or knee in primary and re-revision cases. Methods: All patients treated with a two-stage revision for chronic PJI between 2005 and 2011 were analysed. Patient and infection characteristics were retrieved. Primary outcome was successful infection eradication at last follow-up. Successful eradication is specified as no need for subsequent revision surgery or suppressive antibiotic treatment. Results: Forty-seven patients were treated with a two-stage revision. Infection eradication was achieved in 36 out of 47 cases. Thirty-eight patients had positive cultures: 35 monomicrobial infections and 3 polymicrobial infections. Nine cases of culture-negative infections were identified. Accompanying eradication rates were 26 out of 35 cases, 2 out of 3 cases, and 8 out of 9 cases respectively. Mean follow-up was 128 (27-186) months. For hip and knee revisions the eradication rates were 22 out of 31 cases and 14 out of 16 cases respectively. After primary arthroplasty the infection was eradicated in 29 out of 38 cases and after re-revision in 7 out of 9 cases. Conclusion: In this study, the infection eradication rate for two-stage revision surgery after PJI of the hip and knee in primary and re-revision cases was 77 %. No statistically significant patient, infection and micro-organism characteristics were found which influence the infection eradication rates at long-term follow-up of 128 (27-186) months.

One-year infection control rates of a DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) procedure after primary and prosthetic-joint-infection-related revision arthroplasty - a retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedures are effective treatments for acute postoperative or acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infections. However, literature reporting on the effectiveness of DAIR procedures performed after a one- or two-stage revision because of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (PJI-related revision arthroplasty) is scarce. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the infection control after 1 year of a DAIR procedure in the case of an early postoperative infection either after primary arthroplasty or after PJI-related revision arthroplasty. Materials and methods: All patients treated with a DAIR procedure within 3 months after onset of PJI between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Data were collected on patient and infection characteristics. All infections were confirmed by applying the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2014 criteria. The primary outcome was successful control of infection at 1 year after a DAIR procedure, which was defined as the absence of clinical signs, such as pain, swelling, and erythema; radiological signs, such as protheses loosening; or laboratory signs, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) ( < 10 ) with no use of antibiotic therapy. Results: Sixty-seven patients were treated with a DAIR procedure (41 hips and 26 knees). Successful infection control rates of a DAIR procedure after primary arthroplasty ( n = 51 ) and after prior PJI-related revision arthroplasty ( n = 16 ) were 69 % and 56 %, respectively ( p = 0.38 ). The successful infection control rates of a DAIR procedure after an early acute infection ( n = 35 ) and after a hematogenous infection ( n = 16 ) following primary arthroplasty were both 69 % ( p = 1.00 ). Conclusion: In this limited study population, no statistically significant difference is found in infection control after 1 year between DAIR procedures after primary arthroplasty and PJI-related revision arthroplasty.