McCarthy NL, et al.  Health care-associated and community associated MRSA infections: A comparison of Definitions.  American Journal of Infection Control, 2010:  This retrospective chart review attempts to determine risk factors for CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA based on two commonly used definitions; the epidemiology of the infection and the phenotypic antibiotic sensitivity without looking at the genotype (i.e. looking for the SCCmecIV gene to determine a USA300 strain).  Not surprisingly, to quote their Conclusion from the Abstract “We found few differences between CA- and HA-MRSA infections regardless of how health care association was found. We believe that the migration of CA-MRSA into health care settings and the recent increasing antibiotic resistance of CA-MRSA strains contribute to the lack of factors associated with HA (vs CA) MRSA.”  One finding I did think was particularly relevant was that CA-MRSA accounted for the overwhelming majority of skin and soft tissue infections (p <.0001).

For the past year or two I have been lecturing and writing that the use of classic “risk factors” to determine HA vs CA was a technique of the past. This was recently driven home to me when I saw 3 patients in the hospital with MSSA, 2 of whom were 80+ years old and lived in long term care facilities while I had a perfectly healthy 30 something with no pertinent medical history whatsoever present with a CA-MRSA.  I still continue to use the phenotypic method of looking at antibiotic susceptibilities, particularly toward Bactrim and tetracyclines since we have not seen much CA-MRSA resistance to these drugs at our facility.  It is becoming clearer that perhaps we will need to do the genetic typing, such as the TEM-PCR I discussed in a recent post to really know what we have.  Of course, it may be a moot point in skin and skin structure infections since, as validated by this report, I don’t remember seeing an HA-MRSA in over 2 years.

Nagoba BS et al. A Simple and effective approach for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers with different Wagner grades.  International Wound Journal, April 23, 2010:  This is a retrospective case series from India that collected data from 1998 into 2009.  They looked at the application of a 3% citric acid gel preparation onto 115 diabetic foot ulcerations of various Wagner classification severities up to, and not including grades IV and V.  Of interest to me was that they took cultures of all of the wounds and performed broth dilution sensitivities of all the organisms against the citric acid.  They found that in grade I-II ulcerations they had 94%+ healing in 5-34 applications.  They also found that in deeper wounds there was marked decrease in slough and drainage with increases in healthy granulation.  They concluded that citric acid was safe and maybe even promoted granulation tissue while killing the bacteria found on the wounds.   

I find various problems with the design of this study and am not reporting it because I consider it an earth shattering breakthrough.  Rather, I bring it to your attention because, currently, one of the “Holy Grails” of wound healing is to find an safe, effective, affordable topical antimicrobial to, perhaps, assist in wound healing.  Heck, I am still not even convinced that bioburden reduction is all that many claim it is, as I have blogged before, however, we are all programmed to kill bacteria on a wound and maybe this is an option.  It should probably at least be looked at in more detail.

Traunmuller F, et al. Linezolid concentrations in infected soft tissue and bone following repetitive doses in diabetic patients with bacterial foot infections.  International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2010:  This study assayed fluid from interstitial spaced, inflamed subcutaneous adipose tissue and metatarsal bone from patients with inflamed diabetic foot infections who were at steady state condition after 600 mg twice daily dosing of linezolid.  What they found was not particularly surprising; in all tissues linezolid penetrated to a level that was similar, if not slightly higher than what was found in plasma.  To quote their Abstract “We conclude that linezolid administered at 600 mg twice daily may be considered an effective treatment in diabetic patients suffering from bacterial foot infections complicated by osteomyelitis”. 

We all know that linezolid is not FDA indicated for the treatment of osteomyelitis.  In fact, NO antibiotic marketed in the past 10-12 years has been indicated for osteo, not because they don’t work but because the FDA has not developed “Guidance for Industry” on how to perform an osteomyelitis study.  I have also never been a believer in the concept of “bone penetration” as being an important indicator of osteo efficacy.  They techniques have never been standardized and really, to my mind, penetration numbers mean nothing. That all being said, at least this paper gives those of you who remain stuck on the concept of bone penetration evidence that linezolid does get into, not only bone but also frankly infected diabetic foot tissues.  This is not unlike data published by Gary Stein, PharmD and recently reviewed in the Jan/Feb 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (Nicolau DP, Stein GE. Therapeutic options for diabetic foot infections: A review with an emphasis on tissue penetration characteristics)

Prior to my session, I will be in the Exhibit Hall from 9:30 – 11:30 at the Data Trace Booth to sign copies of the Handbook, talk about this blog and just answer questions anyone might have about treating infections.

I hope to see folks there!

In the 3^rd Edition of the Handbook I review the evidence that shows that perhaps we should rethink this “Standard”.  The entire concept of 4-6 weeks of IV antibiotics as being some magical bullet that will treat osteomyelitis is based on 30-40 year old animal studies.  There is really no human evidence to support that this is the optimum therapy.  In fact, much of the recent data that has been presented, particularly out of Europe, suggests that ORAL antibiotics alone with either NO surgery or just “conservative” debridement of infected bone may be just as effective therapy.  The literature supporting this approach is actually quite a bit more hefty that that supporting the old traditional “standard”.  I explore this question in detail in a lecture I frequently present entitled (thanks to David Armstrong for the catchy title) Antibiotics for Osteomyelitis: Boneheaded or brilliant? One of these presentations can be viewed for free at the website for the always stimulating Diabetic Foot Global Conference (to be held this coming year in Hollywood, CA March 18-20, 2010): http://www.dfcon.com/presentations2009/sat_joseph.html

In no way do I mean to say that surgery is unnecessary.  In fact, if ablative surgery can be performed, it is curative without the use of any antibiotic therapy.  But, sometimes, patients either do not want, or can’t undergo a surgical procedure.  In those cases I am relieved to see that we do have data to support the non surgical treatment of these cases with oral antibiotics alone.  Of course, this approach is not perfect and there are still unanswered questions.  Probably the greatest is the question of duration of therapy.  Do we only need the orals for 4-6 weeks or longer?  One study, referenced in the lecture, by John Embil incorporated 41 weeks +/- 31 weeks of therapy!  This needs to be addressed.  The other literature I would direct you to review is the consensus statement put out by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) http://iwgdf.org  whose recent systematic reviews of the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis should be reviewed by everyone treating this condition. 

To me, this is one of the most fascinating and important areas that we need to explore in the future.

Osteomyelitis of the 1st MTP Joint

Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) – put out by the Infectious Diseases Society of America www.idsociety.org and my favorite clinical ID journal.

Journal of Infectious Diseases (JID) – also an IDSA journal.  Mostly HIV and intense basic research but does occasionally publish in interesting review or bacteriology manuscript.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (AAC)  - this journal, published by the American Society for Microbiology asm.org is the best source for new antibiotic research and clinical microbiology

I periodically also receive manuscript files sent to me by a network of ID friends and colleagues. 

Although I try to review each as they are received I admit that, occasionally, they get lost in a pile on my desk. Because of prior commitments, I admit that this is what has happened over the past 3 months and I have been remiss in my reviewing of these back issues.  So, to bring folks up to speed, here are a few papers of relatively recent vintage that I find interesting.

 Thomas Lodise, et. al. Relationship between initial vancomycin concentration – Time profile and nephrotoxicity among hospitalized patients.  CID, August 15, 2009.  Tom Lodise’s pharmacology group from Albany has been doing some terrific work looking at nephrotoxicity of vancomycin given recent recommendations to increase trough levels to between 15-20mg/L.  Just last year in AAC they published their findings that bumping vanco doses to 4 grams/day (sometimes necessary to achieve these higher peaks) was associated with a significantly higher rate of nephrotoxicity.  In this study they concluded that “The results indicate that a vancomycin exposure – toxicity response relationship exists.  The vancomycin trough value is the pharmacodynamic index that best describes this association.”  I have blogged about this vancomycin dosing issue in the past.  Maybe I am being selective about what I read and share but I still have issues with this concept of bumping vanco trough levels especially given the total lack of data in diabetic foot infections where the patients may already have compromised kidneys. 

 Micheal Ryback, et. al. Vancomycin Therapeutic Guidelines: A summary of consensus recommendations from the IDSA, the American Society of Health System Pharmacists and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.  CID, August 1, 2009.  Perhaps I should have listed this article before the one above since this summarizes the guidelines that promote this new dosing regimen and the concept of achieving an AUC/MIC ratio of >400 by using weight based dosing and bumping troughs.  Considering the attention given to these new guidelines my readership should become very familiar with them.  The full, original document can be accessed at http://www.ashp.org/DocLibrary/BestPractices/TPSVanco.aspx

 Shveta Rani Singh, et. al. In vitro 24-hour time-kill studies of vancomycin and linezolid in combination versus methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus.  AAC Oct. 2009.  This title is a perfect example of what one can expect reading AAC.  Once you get past the wordy titles there is some great information.  I found this interesting because, apparently, there are clinicians trying all different antibiotic combinations to fight MRSA. The authors found that there was no synergy at all, and, in fact, frank antagonism occurred in 3 out of 5 strains when linezolid was added to vancomycin.  The bottom line…try other combinations if you must, just not this one.

 Stan Deresinski. Vancomycin in combination with other antibiotics for the treatment of serious MRSA infections.  CID Oct 1, 2009.  Stan Deresinski out of Stanford University has become a bit of a “go to guy” when it comes to MRSA and the ID community.  I urge all of my readers to find his 2005 CID review paper  Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An Evolutionary, Epidemiologic,and Therapeutic Odyssey which remains one of the most easily digestible treatises on the topic.  In this more recent review he scans the literature to find support of the commonly employed practice of combining vancomycin with a second antibiotic usually rifampin or gentamicin and finds to supportive evidence for these combinations but known potential toxicities.   

 Jose L. Del Pozo, et al. The electricidal effect is active in an experimental model of Staphylococcus epidermidis chronic foreign body osteomyelitis.  AAC Oct. 2009. This interesting rabbit study compared low amperage (200 µA) electrical current to IV doxycycline treatment to no treatment for foreign body osteomyelitis in the rabbit tibia.  As expected, both treatment groups were significantly better than the no treatment group.  Interestingly, the electrical current group was significantly more efficacious than the doxycycline group.  They feel that this might be related to the activity of the current against the bacterial biofilms.  This entire area of bioflims as determining factors in the treatment of chronic infections is fascinating and bears watching. 

Let me know what you think of the concept of writing up these reviews, and please suggest other papers you would like to hear my opinion about

Bone exposed through an open ulceration

If I were to ask any reader of this blog the proper technique for harvesting a bone culture I am fairly certain that the common response would be that it must be a) not taken through the ulcer or sinus tract b) taken from a separate clean site c) the patient should be off all antibiotics.  In fact, ever since Mackowiak published his seminal paper in JAMA way back in 1978 showing sinus tract cultures had poor concordance with deep bone cultures; the prevailing wisdom has been that sinus tracts (and thus ulcers) were off limits.  These results were further confirmed by Eric Senneville in 2006 and Khatri in 2001 along with others.  Thanks to these studies, it has become common knowledge that a proper bone culture should never be harvested through a sinus.

The question of whether or not the patient needed to be off of all antibiotic therapy prior to the culture was always less clearly delineated.  It was almost an empirical belief that if a patient was on antibiotics at the time of the culture then the results would be unreliable.  After all, if a culture is reported as showing “no growth” was this because the specimen was poor, the patient never had osteomyelitis in the first place, or the antibiotics had prevented the organism from growing? 

A recent study by Louis Bernard and colleagues out of University Hospital of Geneva Switzerland, and published in the September 6, 2009 issue of the International Journal of Infectious Diseases challenges much of what we currently hold as sacrosanct.  In this non-randomized, prospective trial 141 patient with 154 episodes of osteomyelitis each underwent 4 microbiological samplings.  Sample “A” consisted of 2 consecutive sinus tract cultures with bone contact (“A1” & “A2”) after only local cleansing of the sinus tract with 0.9% saline.  Sample “B” consisted of a surgical bone biopsy through the sinus.  Sample “C” was a surgical biopsy obtained through an uninfected sited, referred to as the “gold standard”.  Their results showed that when both sinus tract cultures “A1 & A2” revealed the same organism the concordance between “A” and gold standard “C” was 96%.  They calculated the sensitivity as 91%, specificity as 86% and accuracy as 90%.  On top of that, they found that the result was not affected depending on whether the patient was on antibiotics prior to the cultures or not. 

In their Discussion the authors go out of their way to state that “in no way should these consecutive deep sinus tract specimens replace bone culture in situations where a biopsy can be readily obtained because bone culture remains the gold standard for the microbiological diagnosis of osteomyelitis”.  There are sometimes, however, when a surgical culture is just not practical and that patient has already been started on antibiotic therapy, as the authors call it “clinical reality”. 

This fascinating work challenges our common thinking about how to harvest microbiological specimens for osteomyelitis diagnosis and treatment.  I urge the readers of this blog to search out this paper and read it.  It is new, innovative, evidenced based works such as this that lead me to wanting to create a blog…so that I could keep those interested readers up to date on current thinking between editions of the book.

One question that arises consistently at almost all of these lectures is the role of newer antibiotics in the treatment of osteomyelitis and why none of them are FDA approved.   During the course of these talks I invariably ask the audience “name for me an antibiotic FDA approved for osteomyelitis in the past 15 or so years”.  This is followed by the usual litany of newer antibiotics being mentioned by audience members.  Actually, it is a bit of a trick question.  NO antibiotic has received an indication for osteomyelitis in that period of time.  Of course, this is not a reflection on the quality or efficacy of the newer drugs, it is just the symptom of the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (FDA/CDER) never developing “Guidance for Industry” on how to perform an osteomyelitis trial.  What this means is that if Merck, Pfizer, Wyeth, Cubist, whoever, goes to the Agency and tells them they want to receive an indication for osteomyelitis, there are no specific guidelines set by the FDA to tell them what to use for endpoints and how to perform the trial.

Of course, this is an understandable situation given the difficulty this disease presents.  Think about this yourself.  If you were the FDA, how would YOU want the study to be performed?  What are the proper diagnostic criteria? What role, if any, should surgery play? What is the appropriate endpoint? What sort of follow-up should be required to prove the cure or relapse?  The potential questions just go on and on.

This is not to say that some companies have not attempted to do a study.  A survey of www.clinicaltrials.gov using the search terms “osteomyelitis, diabetic foot infections” yield only two results.  Most recently Wyeth attempted to study tigecyline vs. ertapenem +/- vancomycin for diabetic foot infections including osteomyelitis.  Clinicaltrials.gov has the study has the study listed as completed but no osteo data has been presented from it to the best of my knowledge. The second study is taking place in France.  Removing the search term “diabetic foot infection”, Cubist is currently recruiting patients for a prosthetic joint osteomyelitis study of daptomycin.

So, what is the bottom line?  Until the FDA solidifies Guidance on how to do an osteomyelitis trial, especially in the lower extremity, there will be no formal “approvals” for this disease.  That does not imply that the drugs released in the past 15 years are any less effective than some of the grandfathered antibiotics with an osteo indication (how many of you realized that cephalexin is “approved” for osteomyelitis?).  It just means that the drugs have not been studied to the FDA’s standard and the use is off-label.  There are case series in the literature of many of these antibiotics being used successfully for osteo.  If the drug hits the bug found in the bone (the single most important determinant of success) then you should feel comfortable using any of these newer antibiotics.