| Literature DB >> 35547216 |
Karlis Racenis1,2, Dace Rezevska1,3, Monta Madelane4,5, Ervins Lavrinovics6, Sarah Djebara7, Aivars Petersons2,8, Juta Kroica1.
Abstract
High-energy trauma with severe bone fractures can be complicated by infection, leading to the development of osteomyelitis. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an important causative agent of such infections because of its high virulence profile and ability to develop resistance against a wide range of antimicrobials quickly. P. aeruginosa biofilms cause treatment failure and relapsing infections. Bacteriophages are viruses that can be used to treat biofilm-associated infections. Moreover, the combination of phages with certain antimicrobials have demonstrated synergistic and additive effects. We present a case of a 21-year-old patient with relapsing multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa femur osteomyelitis that developed after a road accident, with a proximal right femoral Grade III B open fracture and severe soft tissue damage. Despite extensive antimicrobial treatment and multiple surgical interventions with wound debridement, the infection persisted, with subsequent development of femoral osteomyelitis with a fistula. Patient care management included femoral head excision with wound debridement, intravenous (IV) ceftazidime-avibactam, and the local application of the lytic Pseudomonas bacteriophage cocktail BFC 1.10. Nine months after the intervention, the patient did not show any clinical, radiological, or laboratory signs of inflammation; therefore, hip replacement was performed. Nevertheless, recurrent P. aeruginosa infection evolved at the distal side of the femur and was successfully treated with conventional antimicrobials. In this case, wound debridement combined with antibiotics and bacteriophages resulted in bacterial eradication of proximal femoral segment, avoiding leg amputation, but failed to treat osteomyelitis in distal bone segment. An in vitro assessment of the isolated MDR P. aeruginosa strain for biofilm formation and phage susceptibility was performed. Additionally, the antimicrobial effects of ceftazidime-avibactam and BFC 1.10 were determined on planktonic cell growth and bacterial biofilm prevention was evaluated. The isolated bacterial strains were susceptible to the bacteriophage cocktail. Strong biofilm formation was detected 6 h after inoculation. Ceftazidime-avibactam combined with BFC 1.10 was most effective in preventing planktonic cell growth and biofilm formation. In both cases, the required concentration of ceftazidime-avibactam decreased two-fold. This study demonstrates the possible use of bacteriophages and antibiotics in difficult-to-treat bone and soft tissue infections, where the additive effects of phages and antibiotics were observed.Entities:
Keywords: P. aeruginosa; bacteriophage; biofilm; multidrug resistance; osteomyelitis; phage therapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35547216 PMCID: PMC9081798 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.851310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1Clinical and radiological appearance of the patient prior, during, and after bacteriophage therapy. (A) Computed tomography revealing a fistula that connects femoral head and skin on the right upper third of the lateral femur surface. (B,C) Intraoperative findings from the right femoral head excision on the 5th of December revealing the presence of a femoral fistula. (D) Postoperative photograph showing irrigation system for local bacteriophage application. (E) The appearance of the wound two months after bacteriophage therapy.
Figure 2Timeline showing surgical interventions, relevant antimicrobial therapy, and microbiological and pathology findings.
Figure 3Biofilm formation of isolated P. aeruginosa from the patient and two reference strains (ATCC 14209, ATCC 2785) over 48-h. Sterile trypticase soya broth was used as a negative control.
Figure 4Mean values of minimum inhibitory concentration (A) and biofilm prevention concentration (B) for BFC 1.10 and/or ceftazidime–avibactam. The graph shows the differences between mean minimum inhibitory concentration (C) values using 4 mg/L ceftazidime–avibactam and/or BFC 1.10 6.3 × 106 PFU/mL and mean biofilm prevention concentration (D) values using 8 mg/l ceftazidime–avibactam and/or BFC 1.10 3.3 × 107 PFU/mL. Results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD test and were expressed as p-values. MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; BPC, biofilm prevention concentration; CAZ-AVI, ceftazidime-avibactam.