Literature DB >> 32720352

The AO trauma CPP bone infection registry: Epidemiology and outcomes of Staphylococcus aureus bone infection.

Mario Morgenstern1,2, Christoph Erichsen2, Matthias Militz2, Zhao Xie3, Jiachen Peng4, James Stannard5, Willem-Jan Metsemakers6, Dirk Schaefer7, Volker Alt8,9, Kjeld Søballe10, Michael Nerlich9, Richard E Buckley11, Michael Blauth12, Michael Suk13, Frankie Leung14, Jorge D Barla15, Kiminori Yukata16, Bi Qing17, Stephen L Kates18.   

Abstract

Bone infection represents a serious complication of orthopedic surgery and Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen. To improve the understanding of host-pathogen interaction, we developed a biospecimen registry (AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry) to collect clinical data, bacterial isolates, and serum from patients with S. aureus bone infection. A prospective multinational registry with a 12-month follow-up was created to include adult patients (18 years or older) with culture-confirmed S. aureus infection in long bones after fracture fixation or arthroplasty. Baseline patient attributes and details on infections and treatments were recorded. Blood and serum samples were obtained at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at 1, 6, and 12 months. Clinical outcomes were recorded. Two hundred and ninety-two patients with fracture-related infection (n = 157, 53.8%), prosthetic joint infection (n = 86, 29.5%), and osteomyelitis (n = 49, 16.8%) were enrolled. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was detected in 82 patients (28.4%), with the highest proportion found among patients from North American sites (n = 39, 48.8%) and the lowest from Central European sites (n = 18, 12.2%). Patient outcomes improved at 6 and 12 months in comparison to baseline. The SF-36 physical component summary mean (95% confidence interval) score, however, did not reach 50 at 12 months. The cure rate at the end of the study period was 62.1%. Although patients improved with treatment, less than two-thirds were cured in 1 year. At 12-month follow-up, patient-reported outcome scores were worse for patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRSA; Staphylococcus aureus; bone infection registry; fracture-related infection; implant-related infection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32720352      PMCID: PMC7749080          DOI: 10.1002/jor.24804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.102


adverse events fracture‐related infection follow‐up Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living low‐ and middle‐income countries mental component summary scores methicillin‐resistant S. aureus methicillin‐sensitive S. aureus physical component summary scores Parker Mobility Score standard deviation Short Form‐36

INTRODUCTION

Infection represents a feared complication after orthopedic surgery. The emergence of multidrug‐resistant organisms such as methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have made infection treatment more challenging. Multiple revision surgeries and long‐term antimicrobial therapy are often needed to treat infection and restore function. Although surgical treatment options have improved over time, a considerable knowledge gap remains with respect to the relationship between treatment protocols, risk factors, and patient outcomes. , A recently published systematic literature review (93 studies and 3701 patients) analyzed the treatment concepts and outcomes of fracture‐related infection (FRI). The authors reported an overall treatment success rate of 85% and a recurrence rate of 9%. This review underscored the heterogeneity in treatment protocols and the lack of accepted standardized outcome parameters (eg, quality of life) and showed that study of critical data such as patient factors, causative pathogens, and treatment details were needed for a better understanding of the relationship between FRI treatment protocols and patient outcomes. Further, the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection (ICM 2018), comprised of 869 delegates from 92 countries, failed to reach an agreement that “moderate” evidence exists on the subjects of immunotherapy and immunoprophylaxis for the treatment of implant‐associated infections, and concluded that the elucidation of patient‐specific host‐pathogen interactions is a research priority in this field. To help understand the interplay among patient demographics, comorbidities, treatment modalities, patient‐specific host immunity against the causal pathogen(s), and outcomes, we established an international multicenter biospecimen registry of S. aureus infection in long bones and joints (the AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry) to collect clinical data, bacterial isolates, whole blood, and sera. The development and challenges in setting up this registry have been reported, and the manuscript on the microbiological and immunological results of this registry has been submitted for publication. The aim of this article is to describe the results of the AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry: its patient population, baseline characteristics, infection details, cryopreserved biomaterials, treatment details, complications, functional outcomes, and quality of life after treatment.

METHODS

The study was a prospective, observational, nonrandomized case‐series of patients with bony infections (registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01677000). Study conduct, data management, patient consent (including the use of collected biomaterials for future studies), and ethics approval were as described previously. Baseline assessments were collected when patients consented to participate in the study. The follow‐up (FU) period was 12 months with planned visits at 1, 6, and 12 months. The study was approved by our University Institutional Review Board and at each site's local ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Level of evidence 2b, prognostic study. The AO Foundation via the AO Trauma Clinical Priority Program on “Bone Infection” funded this study.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Adult patients (18 years or older) with confirmed S. aureus (either methicillin‐resistant or sensitive) infection involving a long bone (femur, tibia, fibula, humerus, radius, ulna, and clavicle) due to fracture fixation, osteomyelitis, or arthroplasty were eligible regardless of the stage of disease progression and prior treatment history. S. aureus infection was confirmed by positive deep wound cultures from baseline examinations or by a prior definitive diagnosis of ongoing S. aureus infection (deep wound culture) from the surgical site by the treating surgeon. Prisoners or patients unable to give consent or attend the FU visits were excluded. Patients with active substance abuse that would preclude reliable assessments were excluded.

Outcome measures

Patient attributes, medical history, comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index), medications, treatment approaches, and hospital course were recorded at baseline. Nasal swabs, deep wound cultures, serum, and whole blood samples were taken only at baseline; laboratory blood tests performed through the study sites were recorded. Serum samples collected for later testing in the central laboratory were obtained at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Short Form‐36 version 2 (SF‐36 v2), , Parker Mobility Score (PMS), and Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living (Katz ADL) questionnaires , were used to assess patients' physical and mental health, their mobility, and their degree of independence at baseline and at all FU visits. All patients received standard care chosen by their treating surgeon. Procedure‐related adverse events (AEs) such as complications caused by collection of blood, nasal, and aerobic bacterial samples were documented. In‐hospital complications that led to prolonged hospitalization or readmission were documented in the complication form; predefined events of medical relevance that required hospital admission or prolonged hospitalization were also recorded. Other AEs as defined by ISO 14155 were not recorded.

Short Form‐36

SF‐36 questionnaire consists of 36 questions in eight different scales assessing both physical and mental health status. , The scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better health status.

Parker Mobility Score

The PMS assesses patient mobility. The final score ranges from 0 to 9 points, with higher scores indicating higher function. If any of the three questions were missing, the total score was also set to missing.

Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living

Katz ADL is a 6‐item questionnaire that assesses the independence in activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, continence, and feeding). , If any of the six items were missing, the total grade was also marked as missing.

Healing status

Healing status was recorded at each FU as cured, healing, or other by the individual investigational sites according to their standard of care.

Establishment of the annotated biorepository and clinical laboratory tests

S. aureus strains were identified from the wound samples taken at baseline, and characterized as MRSA, and/or methicillin‐sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) by local laboratories. The individual strains were cultured, cryopreserved at −80°C, and labeled with the patient's alphanumeric registry number for subsequent analyses. Serum samples (~10 mL per patient) collected at baseline and FU visits were cryopreserved at −80°C and labeled with the alphanumeric registry number for subsequent analyses. Descriptive analyses of the level of glycated hemoglobin, C‐reactive protein, white blood cell count, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were performed by the local laboratories. Since these values were not particularly informative, they are not presented in this study.

Statistical analysis

The current study aimed to characterize the patient demographics, disease and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes, therefore no sample size calculation was required. The target sample size of 300 was calculated to allow the possibility of building a prognostic model with nine variables of interest assuming a binary outcome with an incidence of 30 events per 100 patients. The “full analysis population” was defined as all eligible patients who gave written consent and commenced treatment within the study. The “per‐protocol population” was defined as patients who completed all FU visits. Patient baseline characteristics, type of infection, hospitalization, and treatment details were analyzed using descriptive analyses. Continuous variables were summarized using mean and standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed data, whereas median and interquartile range (IQR) as well as minimum and maximum, were used for nonnormally distributed data. Number and percentages were used for categorical variables. SF‐36 and PMS scores were analyzed using both descriptive statistics and mixed‐effects models for repeated measures with an unstructured covariance. Katz ADL scores were analyzed by descriptive statistics and the changes from baseline were analyzed using the Wilcoxon sign rank test. Outcome scores were analyzed for both the full analysis population and the per‐protocol population. The aggregated SF‐36 physical and mental component summary scores (PCS and MCS, respectively) were transformed using the norm‐based scoring with mean = 50 and SD = 10 using the US population norm because its documentation of the algorithm is the best. In short, all scores above 50 can be interpreted as being above the US population average and all scores below 50 can be interpreted as being below the US population average. Although our study population was global, this norm‐based scoring helped simplify the interpretation of the scores. The questionnaire used for this study was the standard (4‐week recall) form. The healing status was analyzed for both full analysis population and complete cases, that is, patients whose assessment was available at all FU visits. SAS software (V9.4 Analytics Software & Solutions, Cary, NC) was used to perform all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Patients were enrolled between November 2012 and August 2017 in 18 centers from ten countries in Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, and Denmark), Asia (China and Japan), North America (the United States and Canada), and South America (Argentina). Three hundred and sixty‐two patients were consented for the study of which 48 did not commence treatment in the study (Figure 1). The culture results were negative for S. aureus in another 22 patients. These patients were not included in this registry. In total, 292 patients met inclusion criteria, gave written consent, and commenced treatment within the study (the full analysis population). Of the 292 patients, 147 (50.4%) were recruited from Europe, 80 (27.4%) from North America, 62 (21.2%) from Asia, and 3 (1.0%) from South America. A patient recruitment diagram shows the details of patient recruitment from the initial screening to the end of the study (Figure 1). A detailed description of patient dropouts and deaths is provided in our previous publication.
Figure 1

Patient recruitment diagram* Reasons include: infection did not involve a long bone, culture‐negative for Staphylococcus aureus infection, and patient moved to a different hospital** Reasons include: patients did not plan on coming back for follow‐ups, patient withdrawal, insurance coverage issue, and unknown exclusion

Patient recruitment diagram* Reasons include: infection did not involve a long bone, culture‐negative for Staphylococcus aureus infection, and patient moved to a different hospital** Reasons include: patients did not plan on coming back for follow‐ups, patient withdrawal, insurance coverage issue, and unknown exclusion

Baseline information and infection details

The patient population was predominantly male (n = 203, 69.5%), and otherwise healthy as indicated by the low Charlson comorbidity index (median = 0.0, range = 0.0‐10.0) (Table 1). More than half of the patients (n = 175; 59.9%) had previously (within the 3 years prior to their inclusion in the current study) undergone orthopedic treatment related to the bone infection with a median number of treatments of 2.0 (range = 1.0‐20.0).
Table 1

Patient characteristics according to healing status at 1‐year follow‐up (FU) (full analysis population with healing status at 1 year available)

Healing status at 1 year FU (cured vs healing/other)
VariablesHealing/otherCuredTotal
N = 72N = 118N = 190
Age, ya
n72118190
Mean (SD)49.0 (16.3)52.7 (16.0)51.3 (16.2)
Median (Q1; Q3)50.0 (40.0; 60.5)51.0 (43.0; 64.0)51.0 (41.0; 62.0)
Min; max18.0; 93.018.0; 85.018.0; 93.0
Gender, n (%)72118190
Female26 (36.1)33 (28.0)59 (31.1)
Male46 (63.9)85 (72.0)131 (68.9)
Body mass index, kg/m2
n72117189
Mean (SD)28.5 (8.6)27.7 (6.1)28.0 (7.2)
Median (Q1; Q3)26.0 (22.6; 32.8)26.9 (23.4; 30.9)26.1 (23.4; 31.5)
Min; max16.6; 68.118.0; 50.416.6; 68.1
Body mass index (kg/m2), n (%)72117189
<18.55 (6.9)1 (0.9)6 (3.2)
18.5 to <25.023 (31.9)47 (40.2)70 (37.0)
25.0 to <30.021 (29.2)32 (27.4)53 (28.0)
30.0 to <359 (12.5)20 (17.1)29 (15.3)
35.0 to <409 (12.5)12 (10.3)21 (11.1)
≥405 (6.9)5 (4.3)10 (5.3)
Body mass index (kg/m2), n (%)72117189
<25.028 (38.9)48 (41.0)76 (40.2)
25.0 to <30.021 (29.2)32 (27.4)53 (28.0)
30.0 to <359 (12.5)20 (17.1)29 (15.3)
≥3514 (19.4)17 (14.5)31 (16.4)
Origin of infection, n (%)72118190
Osteomyelitis12 (16.7)18 (15.3)30 (15.8)
Fracture fixation infection39 (54.2)75 (63.6)114 (60.0)
Prosthetic joint infection21 (29.2)25 (21.2)46 (24.2)
Diabetes, n (%)72118190
No64 (88.9)94 (79.7)158 (83.2)
Yes5 (6.9)17 (14.4)22 (11.6)
Not assessed3 (4.2)7 (5.9)10 (5.3)
Diabetes, n (%)69111180
No64 (92.8)94 (84.7)158 (87.8)
Yes5 (7.2)17 (15.3)22 (12.2)
Charlson comorbidity indexb
n65111176
Mean (SD)0.6 (0.9)0.6 (1.3)0.6 (1.2)
Median (Q1; Q3)0.0 (0.0; 1.0)0.0 (0.0; 1.0)0.0 (0.0; 1.0)
Min; max0.0; 3.00.0; 6.00.0; 6.0
Charlson comorbidity indexb, n (%)65111176
040 (61.5)80 (72.1)120 (68.2)
112 (18.5)19 (17.1)31 (17.6)
211 (16.9)3 (2.7)14 (8.0)
32 (3.1)1 (0.9)3 (1.7)
40 (0.0)5 (4.5)5 (2.8)
50 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
60 (0.0)3 (2.7)3 (1.7)
80 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
100 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Region, n (%)72118190
Central Europe26 (36.1)75 (63.6)101 (53.2)
Asia20 (27.8)27 (22.9)47 (24.7)
America26 (36.1)16 (13.6)42 (22.1)

Calculated as (date of informed consent minus date of birth) divided by 365.25 (subsequently rounded off); date of birth was approximated using year of birth and 30th June as the day and month.

The minimum possible score is 0 and maximum of 29. A higher score indicates a greater burden of comorbid conditions.

Patient characteristics according to healing status at 1‐year follow‐up (FU) (full analysis population with healing status at 1 year available) Calculated as (date of informed consent minus date of birth) divided by 365.25 (subsequently rounded off); date of birth was approximated using year of birth and 30th June as the day and month. The minimum possible score is 0 and maximum of 29. A higher score indicates a greater burden of comorbid conditions. The origin of infection was fracture fixation for open or closed fracture (n = 157, 53.8%), prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 86, 29.5%), or osteomyelitis (n = 49, 16.8%) (Table 1). Aside from S. aureus infection (MSSA or MRSA), 46 patients (15.8%) had infections involving additional organisms. The proportion of MRSA infection was the highest in patients recruited from North American study sites (n = 39, 48.8%), followed by the ones recruited from Asian study sites (n = 25, 40.3%) and lowest in European sites (n = 18, 12.2%).

Hospitalization and treatment details

The median time from onset of infection symptoms until baseline hospitalization was 14 days. Urgent (within 1 day) hospital admission was required in 43.5% (n = 127) and emergency (same day) admission in 21.6% (n = 63) and 60% of the patients had already had some orthopedic treatment related to infection prior to recruitment. (Table 2). The remaining patients (n = 102; 34.9%) were admitted semi‐electively. Only three patients (1.0%) received an ambulatory treatment. The median time between admission and surgery was one day (Table 2). All but seven patients (2.4%) received surgical treatment; in more than half of the cases (n = 151; 53.2%) a multistage procedure was used. Surgical debridement was performed in most cases (n = 264; 92.6%). The mean duration of hospital stay was 29.9 days (SD = 31.9), ranging from one to 247 days. Systemic antibiotics were prescribed for all but eleven patients, and the median (Q1; Q3) treatment length was 24.0 (12.0; 42.0) days. Among the 277 patients with recorded antibiotic treatment details, the predominant route of administration was intravenous (n = 251; 90.6%). Treatment details are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Details of infection, hospitalization, and treatment

Infection and hospitalization details
Onset of symptoms of infection (days before hospital admission), n292
Mean (SD)359.2 (1795.7)
Median (Q1; Q3)14.0 (4.0; 80.0)
Min; max0.0; 17885.0
Origin of infection, n (%)292
Osteomyelitis49 (16.8)
Fracture fixation infection157 (53.8)
Prosthetic joint infection86 (29.5)
Days between admission and surgery (days), n285
Mean (SD)4.8 (17.3)
Median (Q1; Q3)1.0 (0.0; 4.0)
Min; max0.0; 230.0
Duration of hospital stay (nights), n290
Mean (SD)29.9 (31.9)
Min; max0.0; 247.0
Admission type, n (%)292
Emergency63 (21.6)
Urgent127 (43.5)
Elective102 (34.9)
Discharge destination n (%)289
Home215 (74.4)
Nursing home40 (13.8)
Residential home3 (1.0)
Hospice care1 (0.3)
Transfer to other hospital30 (10.4)
Details of infection, hospitalization, and treatment The lower leg (tibia/fibula) was the most frequently affected (n = 116; 40.7%) body region, followed by the knee (n = 60; 21.1%), the femur (n = 51; 17.9%), and the hip (n = 44; 15.4%). The infection was less commonly seen in the upper extremity (clavicle: n = 1, 0.4%; shoulder: n = 5, 1.8%; humerus: n = 10, 3.5%; forearm: n = 15, 5.3%). In 26 patients (8.9%), more than one body region was involved.

Outcomes

Table 3 summarizes the results of the mixed‐effects model analyses on the SF‐36 and PMS scores of the full analysis population. At 1 month, both the SF‐36 mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) PCS score (30.5 [29.5; 31.5]) and the PMS mean (95% CI) score (4.2 [3.9; 4.6]) were lower than the baseline scores (30.9 [29.7; 32.0] and 4.8 [4.4; 5.1], respectively); the difference was statistically significant for the PMS scores (P = .002), but not statistically significant for the SF‐36 PCS scores (P = .447). At 6 months, the SF‐36 mean (95% CI) scores were PCS, 35.5 (34.2; 36.7) and MCS, 47.1 (45.4; 48.7); by 12 months, these were 37.9 (36.4; 39.3) and 46.7 (45.0; 48.5), respectively; the improvements from baseline were statistically significant (P < .001). Both PCS and MCS mean (95% CI) scores at 12 months were lower than 50, that is, the US population norm.
Table 3

SF‐36 summary scores and Parker Mobility Score over follow‐up

OutcomeVisitnMean (95% CI)Change (95% CI) P valueMRSA vs no MRSA P value
SF‐36 physical component summary (PCS)Baseline27130.9 (29.7; 32.0)
1 month25330.5 (29.5; 31.5)−0.4 (−1.4; 0.6).447
6 months21035.5 (34.2; 36.7)4.6 (3.3; 5.9)<.001
12 months19137.9 (36.4; 39.3)7.0 (5.6; 8.4)<.001
SF‐36 mental component summary (MCS)Baseline27142.5 (40.8; 44.2)
1 month25343.1 (41.4; 44.8)0.6 (−1.0; 2.1).458
6 months21047.1 (45.4; 48.7)4.5 (2.9; 6.2)<.001
12 months19146.7 (45.0; 48.5)4.2 (2.5; 6.0)<.001
SF‐36 PCS No MRSABaseline20031.5 (30.2; 32.9).047
1 month18731.2 (30.0; 32.3)−0.4 (−1.6; 0.9).574.037
6 months15636.5 (35.0; 38.0)5.0 (3.5; 6.5)<.001.018
12 months14439.3 (37.6; 41.0)7.7 (6.1; 9.4)<.001.003
SF‐36 PCS + MRSABaseline7929.0 (26.9; 31.1)
1 month7128.9 (27.0; 30.7)−0.1 (−2.1; 1.8).902
6 months5533.0 (30.5; 35.5)4.0 (1.6; 6.5).001
12 months4934.3 (31.5; 37.1)5.3 (2.6; 8.0)<.001
SF‐36 MCS No MRSABaseline20043.3 (41.3; 45.3)
1 month18743.5 (41.4; 45.5)0.2 (−1.7; 2.0).844.097
6 months15647.7 (45.8; 49.7)4.5 (2.6; 6.4)<.001.423
12 months14447.6 (45.5; 49.6)4.3 (2.2; 6.3)<.001.167
.130
SF‐36 MCS + MRSABaseline7940.1 (37.0; 43.3)
1 month7141.9 (38.6; 45.2)1.7 (−1.2; 4.7).244
6 months5545.1 (42.0; 48.3)5.0 (1.9; 8.1).002
12 months4944.5 (41.1; 47.9)4.4 (1.0; 7.7).011
Parker Mobility ScoreBaseline2854.8 (4.4; 5.1)
Summary1 month2594.2 (3.9; 4.6)−0.5 (−0.9; −0.2).002
6 months2106.2 (5.9; 6.6)1.5 (1.0; 1.9)<.001
12 months1876.9 (6.6; 7.2)2.1 (1.8; 2.5)<.001
Baseline2045.0 (4.6; 5.4)
Parker Mobility Score1 month1844.4 (3.9; 4.8)−0.7 (−1.0; −0.3).001
No MRSA6 months1536.4 (6.0; 6.8)1.4 (0.9; 1.9)<.001
12 months1377.1 (6.8; 7.5)2.1 (1.7; 2.5)<.001
Parker Mobility ScoreBaseline784.0 (3.3; 4.7).013
With MRSA1 month723.9 (3.3; 4.6)−0.1 (−0.7; 0.6).812.273
6 months565.8 (5.1; 6.4)1.8 (1.0; 2.6)<.001.110
12 months486.3 (5.7; 6.9)2.3 (1.6; 3.1)<.001.028

Note: Estimates, confidence intervals, and P values were derived from a mixed‐effect model for repeated measures with an unstructured covariance

SF‐36 summary scores and Parker Mobility Score over follow‐up Note: Estimates, confidence intervals, and P values were derived from a mixed‐effect model for repeated measures with an unstructured covariance Statistically significant improvements were also observed in PMS scores at 6 and 12 months. Analyses performed on the data from the “per‐protocol population” produced results with no qualitative differences from those performed on the data from the “full analysis population” (data not shown). Table 4 summarizes the results of Katz ADL scores over the course of follow‐up for patients with and without MRSA. Table 5 summarizes the changes in Katz ADL scores between FU visits and baseline using data from patients with scores available both at baseline and at the relevant follow‐up. Similar to the results from SF‐36 PCS and PMS, the mean (SD) score at 1 month (4.4 [2.0]) decreased slightly from the baseline (4.7 [1.9]), and as in the case of SF‐36 PCS scores, the decrease was not statistically significant (P = .070) (Table 5). At 6 and 12 months (full analysis population) the mean (SD) scores rose from 4.6 (1.9) at baseline to 5.3 (1.5) and 5.5 (1.2), respectively (P < .001 in both cases). At the individual patient level, approximately half of the patients maintained their independence level at each FU; some became more independent at 6 and 12 months (n = 76, 38.4% and n = 71, 39.4%, respectively) whereas a few worsened and became more dependent (n = 20, 10.1% at 6 months and n = 15, 8.3% at 12 months) compared with baseline (Table 5).
Table 4

KATZ ADL over follow‐up for patients with and without MRSA (full analysis population)

MRSA infection present?
KATZ ADL sum scoreNoYes P value
N = 207N = 82
Baseline.001§
n20376
Mean (SD)4.8 (1.8)4.0 (2.1)
Median (Q1; Q3)6.0 (4.0; 6.0)4.5 (2.0; 6.0)
Min; max0.0; 6.00.0; 6.0
1 month.004§
n18468
Mean (SD)4.7 (1.8)3.8 (2.2)
Median (Q1; Q3)6.0 (3.5; 6.0)4.0 (2.0; 6.0)
Min; max0.0; 6.00.0; 6.0
6 months.020§
n15054
Mean (SD)5.5 (1.3)4.8 (1.9)
Median (Q1; Q3)6.0 (6.0; 6.0)6.0 (4.0; 6.0)
Min; max0.0; 6.00.0; 6.0
12 months.175§
n13649
Mean (SD)5.6 (1.1)5.3 (1.4)
Median (Q1; Q3)6.0 (6.0; 6.0)6.0 (5.0; 6.0)
Min; max0.0; 6.00.0; 6.0

Abbreviations: KATZ ADL, Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living; max, maximum; min, minimum; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

P value calculated according to the Wilcoxon sign rank test.

Table 5

Change in Katz ADL sum scores

VariablesBaseline1 monthChange from baseline P value
KATZ ADL sum score.070*
n250250250
Mean (SD)4.7 (1.9)4.4 (2.0)−0.2 (2.0)
Median (Q1; Q3)6.0 (4.0; 6.0)5.0 (3.0; 6.0)0.0 (−1.0; 0.0)
Min; max0.0; 6.00.0; 6.0−6.0; 6.0

Note: Only data from patients with scores available both at baseline and at the relevant follow‐up were used for analysis.

Abbreviations: KATZ ADL, Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living; max, maximum; min, minimum.

P value calculated according to the Wilcoxon sign rank test.

KATZ ADL over follow‐up for patients with and without MRSA (full analysis population) Abbreviations: KATZ ADL, Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living; max, maximum; min, minimum; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus. P value calculated according to the Wilcoxon sign rank test. Change in Katz ADL sum scores Note: Only data from patients with scores available both at baseline and at the relevant follow‐up were used for analysis. Abbreviations: KATZ ADL, Katz Index of independence in activities of daily living; max, maximum; min, minimum. P value calculated according to the Wilcoxon sign rank test. Treating surgeons recorded the cure rate at 1, 6, and 12 months as 4.5% (12/265), 36.8% (78/212), and 62.1% (118/190), respectively. At one year, 75 (63.6%) of FRIs, 25 (21.2%) of PJI's, and 18 (15.3%) cases of osteomyelitis were described as cured (Table 1).

In‐hospital complications and rehospitalization

Forty‐one patients experienced in‐hospital complications that led to prolonged hospitalization or readmission; 10 patients died of such in‐hospital complications and 14 patients who enrolled for the study died. The details of the patients who died are found in Table S1. The risk (% [95% CI]) of in‐hospital complication was 14.1% (10.3; 18.7) based on the number of the full analysis population and 18.9% (13.9; 24.7) based on the sensitivity analysis (ie, analysis including only patients who either completed the 1‐year FU or who experienced at least one in‐hospital complication). Not counting the hospitalization at baseline, patients were rehospitalized due to infection at a median (Q1; Q3) of 1.0 (0.0; 1.0) time during the study period and received surgical treatments at a median (Q1; Q3) of 1.0 (0.0; 3.0) time. The overall risk (% [95% CI]) of patients being rehospitalized during the study period was 53.8% (47.9; 59.6). Sensitivity analysis of patients who had completed the 1‐year FU and/or with a record of rehospitalization showed a slightly higher rehospitalization risk of 63.4% (57.1; 69.4).

Comparison of MSSA vs MRSA infections

The patient's age, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index did not differ between MSSA and MRSA infections. At 12‐month follow‐up, 64.7% (90/139) of the MSSA infections and 57.1% (28/49) of the MRSA infections were cured (P = .161). The healing status did not differ between the two groups at 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up (Table 6).
Table 6

Summary of healing status assessment over time (full analysis population)

Visit
VariablesBaseline1 month6 months12 months
N = 292N = 265N = 216N = 196
Healing status
n265212190
Cured, n (%)12 (4.5)78 (36.8)118 (62.1)
Healing, n (%)229 (86.4)122 (57.5)57 (30.0)
Other, n (%)24 (9.1)12 (5.7)15 (7.9)
No MRSA present
n188155139
Cured, n (%)9 (4.8)57 (36.8)90 (64.7)
Healing, n (%)163 (86.7)89 (57.4)36 (25.9)
Other, n (%)16 (8.5)9 (5.8)13 (9.4)
MRSA present
n745649
Cured, n (%)3 (4.1)21 (37.5)28 (57.1)
Healing, n (%)63 (85.1)33 (58.9)19 (38.8)
Other, n (%)8 (10.8)2 (3.6)2 (4.1)
Summary of healing status assessment over time (full analysis population) The PMS score and SF‐36 outcomes with subscale and summary scores of the full analysis population are shown separately for patients with or without MRSA infection in Table 3. The PMS scores (95% CI) were significantly lower in patients with a MRSA infection at baseline (4.0 [3.3; 4.7]) and 12‐month follow‐up (6.3 [5.7; 6.9]) compared with MSSA infections (5.0 [4.6; 5.4] [P = .013] and 7.1 [6.8; 7.5] [P = .028] respectively). At 1 and 6 months, the PMS scores did not differ between methicillin‐resistant and susceptible infections. The difference in SF‐36‐PCS scores between the two groups was statistically significant at baseline and all time points. The most pronounced differences were at 12 months, with the mean (95% CI) score of 34.3 (31.5; 37.1) for the MRSA positive patients in comparison to 39.3 (37.6; 41.0) for the MRSA negative patients (P = .003). The difference in MCS scores between the two groups was not statistically significant. The mean (SD) Katz ADL scores were lower in MRSA infections at all time points, whereas the difference was significant only at baseline, 1‐ and 6‐month (Table 4). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to look for predictors of being cured at 1 year (Tables 7 and 8). Age, gender, body mass index, Charlson score, diabetes, and origin of infection were not predictive for cure. Only treatment delivered in Europe was statistically significant as a predictor of 1‐year cure on univariate and multivariate logistical regression models.
Table 7

Analysis of potential predictors for cure at 1‐year follow‐up—results from univariable logistic regression models

VariableDetailsUnadjusted odds ratio95% CI P value
Age, yPer 10 years increase1.16(0.96; 1.39).118
GenderMale vs female1.46(0.78; 2.72).240
Body mass index, kg/m2 25.0 to <30.0 vs <25.0.89(0.43; 1.83).714
30.0 to <35 vs <25.01.30(0.52; 3.23)
≥35 vs <25.00.71(0.30; 1.65)
Charlson comorbidity indexPer 1 point increase0.98(0.76; 1.28).908
DiabetesYes vs no2.31(0.81; 6.59).116
Origin of infectionOsteomyelitis vs fracture fixation infection0.78(0.34; 1.78).391
Prosthetic joint infection vs fracture fixation infection0.62(0.31; 1.24)
RegionAmerica vs Central Europe0.21(0.10; 0.46)<.001
Asia vs Central Europe0.47(0.23; 0.97)
Table 8

Analysis of potential predictors for being cured at the 1‐year follow‐up—results from multivariable logistic regression models

VariablesDetailsAdjusted odds ratio95% CI P value
Age, yPer 10 years increase1.19(0.94; 1.51).149
GenderMale vs female1.34(0.63; 2.85).445
Body mass index, kg/m2 25.0 to <30.0 vs <25.00.68(0.31; 1.52).665
30.0 to <35 vs <25.01.31(0.42; 4.11)
≥35 vs <25.00.91(0.30; 2.80)
Charlson comorbidity indexPer 1 point increase0.74(0.51; 1.06).098
DiabetesYes vs no3.73(0.86; 16.27).079
Origin of infectionOsteomyelitis vs fracture fixation infection0.92(0.37; 2.28).729
Prosthetic joint infection vs fracture fixation infection1.50(0.51; 4.40)
RegionAmerica vs Central Europe0.22(0.09; 0.58).008
Asia vs Central Europe0.61(0.26; 1.43)
Analysis of potential predictors for cure at 1‐year follow‐up—results from univariable logistic regression models Analysis of potential predictors for being cured at the 1‐year follow‐up—results from multivariable logistic regression models

DISCUSSION

The AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry offers insight into the epidemiology and outcomes of S. aureus infections involving long bones and joints. A few key aspects are addressed below. The study showed that nearly 60% of the patients had been treated for the same infection within the three years before they were enrolled in the current study. These patients had received a median number of two prior treatments. At least one patient had received as many as 20 prior orthopedic treatments, demonstrating the chronic nature of S. aureus long‐bone infection. This clinical finding is consistent with the recent discoveries on the unique pathogenic mechanisms of S. aureus in orthopedic infections. These include (a) biofilm formation on the implant and necrotic bone, , (b) generation of staphylococcal abscess communities (SACs) in soft tissues and bone marrow, , , (c) intracellular infection, and (d) the ability to colonize the osteocyte‐canalicular network of live cortical bone. , Less than two‐thirds of the patients were judged by their treating surgeon to be “cured” 12 months after treatment. This underscores the chronic nature of long‐bone infections. Although the current cure rate was low in comparison to what has been reported historically (ie, 80% to 100% for both FRIs and PJI), , a true comparison is not possible because there is no objective definition of “cure”. Caution is necessary when interpreting the current cure rate because of the heterogeneity of the patient population in terms of the infection stage upon enrollment in the study. Although patients' mental and physical state generally improved by the end of the study period based on the SF‐36, PMS, and Katz ADL scores, the health status of the patients was still worse than the average of the normal US population as measured by the SF‐36 scores. This underscores the negative effect of S. aureus bone infection on the patient's quality of life. Additionally, 4.8% of patients died during the first year after enrollment underscoring the serious nature of S. aureus infection of long bones and joints.

Limitations

The current study has several limitations. (a) Since we chose to accept patients previously diagnosed with long‐bone infection, the baseline status of the patient population was heterogeneous with regard to the chronicity and progression of the infection. Although we have presented the outcome of the patients after the current treatments, the readers should interpret the timing of the outcomes with caution, keeping in mind that the starting population was heterogeneous. (b) Although the current study aimed to capture a global picture of long‐bone infections, the study patient population was not evenly distributed among the geographical locations. Some regions were underrepresented (eg, South America, Middle East, and Southeast Asia) or not represented at all (eg, Africa and Australia). Due to the high incidence and widespread nature of antimicrobial‐resistant infections, bone and joint infections are a major healthcare burden in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC), therefore, the underrepresentation of LMIC is particularly noticeable. (c) For the sake of having a patient population with some degree of homogeneity, the current study focused on S. aureus infections. Although S. aureus is the most common causative pathogen, many bone and joint infections are associated with other pathogens, , , , which were not represented in this registry. (d) Although the current study showed that more than half of the patients (n = 151, 53.2%) received a multistage procedure, which is concordant with the literature, this number should be taken with caution because the reporting was not consistent among the investigational sites. Some sites reported a multistage surgery as one surgery, while others may have reported the baseline surgery of a multistage surgery as the first surgery and all subsequent stages as additional surgeries. (e) The AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry suffered from a high dropout rate. Nevertheless, per‐protocol analyses and sensitivity analyses produced qualitatively similar results. We presume that the high dropout rate did not affect the interpretation of the data.

CONCLUSION

The AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry demonstrated a highest proportion of MRSA vs MSSA long bone and joint infection in North America, followed by Asia and then Central Europe. Of this population, nearly 60% of the patients had been previously treated for reasons related to the current infection. One year after the treatment, less than two‐thirds of the patients were reported to be clinically cured, and both the mental and health status of the patients were, on average, worse than the general US population. At 12‐month follow‐up, SF‐36 (PCS component) and PMS scores were reported to be worse for patients with MRSA infections than for MSSA infection. The AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection Registry is an annotated biospecimen repository that can be utilized to elucidate relationships between patient demographics, comorbidities, treatment modality, patent‐specific host immunity to the causal pathogen(s), and outcomes, in prospective studies.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

SLK: Grant‐AO Trauma CPP Bone Infection—PI, DePuy Synthes—in kind research support, NIH (P50 AR072000), NCATS CTSA Grant # 1UL1TR002649, PCORI and Journal Editor—Sage Publications. MM: Research support from AO Trauma. WJM: received research support from AO Trauma, is a consultant for Depuy Synthes and member of the speakers bureau of Zimmer Biomet. MB: Franchise Medical Director, Preclinical Clinical Medical Trauma CMF Biomaterials, Depuy Synthes. FL: Research support from AO Trauma, Journal Deputy Editor Sage Publication, Depuy Synthes. KS, XZ, CE, MM, JS, MS, MN, JB, DS, KY, BQ, YL: none reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

SLK: design and oversight of the study, drafting and review of manuscript. MM: Principal investigator at study site, drafting of the manuscript. WJM, MB, FL, DS, JS, MS, RB, VA, KY, JB, MN, KS, XZ, BQ, and YL: Principal investigator at study site. Review/corrections of the manuscript. Supporting information Click here for additional data file.
  27 in total

Review 1.  SF-36 health survey update.

Authors:  J E Ware
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Development and challenges in setting up an international bone infection registry.

Authors:  Stephen L Kates; Severine Hurni; Maio S Chen
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 3.  Osteomyelitis: Recent advances in pathophysiology and therapeutic strategies.

Authors:  Mitchell C Birt; David W Anderson; E Bruce Toby; Jinxi Wang
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-10-26

4.  Osteomyelitis of the long bones.

Authors:  Jason H Calhoun; M M Manring; Mark Shirtliff
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.314

5.  The changing epidemiology of bacteraemic osteoarticular infections in the early 21st century.

Authors:  O Murillo; I Grau; J Lora-Tamayo; J Gomez-Junyent; A Ribera; F Tubau; J Ariza; R Pallares
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2014-10-12       Impact factor: 8.067

6.  2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections.

Authors:  Kordo Saeed; Alex C McLaren; Edward M Schwarz; Valentin Antoci; William V Arnold; Antonia F Chen; Martin Clauss; Jaime Esteban; Vanya Gant; Edward Hendershot; Noreen Hickok; Carlos A Higuera; Débora C Coraça-Huber; Hyonmin Choe; Jessica A Jennings; Manjari Joshi; William T Li; Philip C Noble; K Scott Phillips; Paul S Pottinger; Camilo Restrepo; Holger Rohde; Thomas P Schaer; Hao Shen; Mark Smeltzer; Paul Stoodley; Jason C J Webb; Eivind Witsø
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.494

7.  Genetic requirements for Staphylococcus aureus abscess formation and persistence in host tissues.

Authors:  Alice G Cheng; Hwan Keun Kim; Monica L Burts; Thomas Krausz; Olaf Schneewind; Dominique M Missiakas
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Chronic Osteomyelitis with Staphylococcus aureus Deformation in Submicron Canaliculi of Osteocytes: A Case Report.

Authors:  Karen L de Mesy Bentley; Ashlee MacDonald; Edward M Schwarz; Irvin Oh
Journal:  JBJS Case Connect       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

9.  Insights into treatment and outcome of fracture-related infection: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  H Bezstarosti; E M M Van Lieshout; L W Voskamp; K Kortram; W Obremskey; M A McNally; W J Metsemakers; M H J Verhofstad
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  The AO trauma CPP bone infection registry: Epidemiology and outcomes of Staphylococcus aureus bone infection.

Authors:  Mario Morgenstern; Christoph Erichsen; Matthias Militz; Zhao Xie; Jiachen Peng; James Stannard; Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Dirk Schaefer; Volker Alt; Kjeld Søballe; Michael Nerlich; Richard E Buckley; Michael Blauth; Michael Suk; Frankie Leung; Jorge D Barla; Kiminori Yukata; Bi Qing; Stephen L Kates
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 3.102

View more
  12 in total

1.  Efficacy of Bisphosphonate-Conjugated Sitafloxacin in a Murine Model of S. aureus Osteomyelitis: Evidence of "Target & Release" Kinetics and Killing of Bacteria Within Canaliculi.

Authors:  Youliang Ren; Thomas Xue; Joshua Rainbolt; Karen L de Mesy Bentley; Chad A Galloway; Yuting Liu; Philip Cherian; Jeffrey Neighbors; Marloes I Hofstee; Frank H Ebetino; Thomas Fintan Moriarty; Shuting Sun; Edward M Schwarz; Chao Xie
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 6.073

Review 2.  Fracture-related infection.

Authors:  T Fintan Moriarty; Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Mario Morgenstern; Marloes I Hofstee; Alejandro Vallejo Diaz; James E Cassat; Britt Wildemann; Melissa Depypere; Edward M Schwarz; R Geoff Richards
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 65.038

3.  Distinct vasculotropic versus osteotropic features of S. agalactiae versus S. aureus implant-associated bone infection in mice.

Authors:  Elysia A Masters; Stephanie P Hao; H Mark Kenney; Yugo Morita; Chad A Galloway; Karen L de Mesy Bentley; Benjamin F Ricciardi; Brendan F Boyce; Edward M Schwarz; Irvin Oh
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Distinct expression trend of signature antigens of Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis correlated with clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Wei Fu; Wenbin He; Youliang Ren; Zhengdao Li; Jinyue Liu; Yi Liu; Zhao Xie; Jianzhong Xu; Qing Bi; Mingxiang Kong; Charles C Lee; John L Daiss; Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan; John R Owen; Stephen L Kates; Jiachen Peng; Chao Xie
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Serum antibodies against Staphylococcus aureus can prognose treatment success in patients with bone infections.

Authors:  Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan; Christopher A Beck; John R Owen; Chao Xie; Stephen L Kates; John L Daiss
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-12-25       Impact factor: 3.102

6.  Bacteriophage Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of Fracture-Related Infection Caused by Staphylococcus aureus: a Preclinical Study.

Authors:  Jolien Onsea; Virginia Post; Tim Buchholz; Hella Schwegler; Stephan Zeiter; Jeroen Wagemans; Jean-Paul Pirnay; Maya Merabishvili; Matteo D'Este; Stijn G Rotman; Andrej Trampuz; Michael H J Verhofstad; William T Obremskey; Rob Lavigne; R Geoff Richards; T Fintan Moriarty; Willem-Jan Metsemakers
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2021-12-15

7.  IgG4-specific responses in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bone infections are not predictive of postoperative complications.

Authors:  J R Owen; M P Campbell; M D Mott; C A Beck; C Xie; G Muthukrishnan; J L Daiss; E M Schwarz; S L Kates
Journal:  Eur Cell Mater       Date:  2021-09-22       Impact factor: 3.942

Review 8.  Skeletal infections: microbial pathogenesis, immunity and clinical management.

Authors:  Elysia A Masters; Benjamin F Ricciardi; Karen L de Mesy Bentley; T Fintan Moriarty; Edward M Schwarz; Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 78.297

9.  IsdB antibody-mediated sepsis following S. aureus surgical site infection.

Authors:  Kohei Nishitani; Masahiro Ishikawa; Yugo Morita; Noriaki Yokogawa; Chao Xie; Karen L de Mesy Bentley; Hiromu Ito; Stephen L Kates; John L Daiss; Edward M Schwarz
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2020-10-02

10.  The AO trauma CPP bone infection registry: Epidemiology and outcomes of Staphylococcus aureus bone infection.

Authors:  Mario Morgenstern; Christoph Erichsen; Matthias Militz; Zhao Xie; Jiachen Peng; James Stannard; Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Dirk Schaefer; Volker Alt; Kjeld Søballe; Michael Nerlich; Richard E Buckley; Michael Blauth; Michael Suk; Frankie Leung; Jorge D Barla; Kiminori Yukata; Bi Qing; Stephen L Kates
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 3.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.