Musculoskeletal infections (MSKI) remain the bane of orthopedic surgery, and result in grievous illness and inordinate costs that threaten healthcare systems. As prevention, diagnosis, and treatment has remained largely unchanged over the last 50 years, a 2nd International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection (ICM 2018, https://icmphilly.com) was completed. Questions pertaining to all areas of MSKI were extensively researched to prepare recommendations, which were discussed and voted on by the delegates using the Delphi methodology. The questions, including the General Assembly (GA) results, have been published (GA questions). However, as critical outcomes include: (i) incidence and cost data that substantiate the problems, and (ii) establishment of research priorities; an ICM 2018 research workgroup (RW) was assembled to accomplish these tasks. Here, we present the result of the RW consensus on the current and projected incidence of infection, and the costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties, which range from 0.1% to 30%, and $17,000 to $150,000. The RW also identified the most important research questions. The Delphi methodology was utilized to initially derive four objective criteria to define a subset of the 164 GA questions that are high priority for future research. Thirty-eight questions (23% of all GA questions) achieved the requisite > 70% agreement vote, and are highlighted in this Consensus article within six thematic categories: acute versus chronic infection, host immunity, antibiotics, diagnosis, research caveats, and modifiable factors. Finally, the RW emphasizes that without appropriate funding to address these high priority research questions, a 3rd ICM on MSKI to address similar issues at greater cost is inevitable. ICM, International Consensus Meeting; MSKI, musculoskeletal infections; RW, research workgroup. * 2018 ICM RW consensus on the current and projected incidences of infection, and costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties. These estimates, which were compiled from information were obtained from: (i) recent peer-reviewed publications, (ii) analysis of 2015 national administrative data using HCUPNet (https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/#setup), and (iii) RW expertise. 998 SCHWARZ ET AL.

No abstract

Biofilm-associated implant-related bone and joint infections are clinically important due to the extensive morbidity, cost of care and socioeconomic burden that they cause. Research in the field of biofilms has expanded in the past two decades, however, there is still an immense knowledge gap related to many clinical challenges of these biofilm-associated infections. This subject was assigned to the Biofilm Workgroup during the second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection held in Philadelphia USA (ICM 2018) (https://icmphilly.com). The main objective of the Biofilm Workgroup was to prepare a consensus document based on a review of the literature, prepared responses, discussion, and vote on thirteen biofilm related questions. The Workgroup commenced discussing and refining responses prepared before the meeting on day one using Delphi methodology, followed by a tally of responses using an anonymized voting system on the second day of ICM 2018. The Working group derived consensus on information about biofilms deemed relevant to clinical practice, pertaining to: (1) surface modifications to prevent/inhibit biofilm formation; (2) therapies to prevent and treat biofilm infections; (3) polymicrobial biofilms; (4) diagnostics to detect active and dormant biofilm in patients; (5) methods to establish minimal biofilm eradication concentration for biofilm bacteria; and (6) novel anti-infectives that are effective against biofilm bacteria. It was also noted that biomedical research funding agencies and the pharmaceutical industry should recognize these areas as priorities. ß

No abstract

Antibiotic‐loaded bone cement (ALBC) is broadly used to treat orthopaedic infections based on the rationale that high‐dose local delivery is essential to eradicate biofilm‐associated bacteria. However, ALBC formulations are empirically based on drug susceptibility from routine laboratory testing, which is known to have limited clinical relevance for biofilms. There are also dosing concerns with nonstandardized, surgeon‐directed, hand‐mixed formulations, which have unknown release kinetics. On the basis of our knowledge of in vivo biofilms, pathogen virulence, safety issues with nonstandardized ALBC formulations, and questions about the cost‐effectiveness of ALBC, there is a need to evaluate the evidence for this clinical practice. To this end, thought leaders in the field of musculoskeletal infection (MSKI) met on 1 August 2019 to review and debate published and anecdotal information, which highlighted four major concerns about current ALBC use: (a) substantial lack of level 1 evidence to demonstrate efficacy; (b) ALBC formulations become subtherapeutic following early release, which risks induction of antibiotic resistance, and exacerbated infection from microbial colonization of the carrier; (c) the absence of standardized formulation protocols, and Food and Drug Administration‐approved high‐dose ALBC products to use following resection in MSKI treatment; and (d) absence of a validated assay to determine the minimum biofilm eradication concentration to predict ALBC efficacy against patient specific micro‐organisms. Here, we describe these concerns in detail, and propose areas in need of research.

No abstract

Gradient insulator-based dielectrophoresis used to generate separation and concentration of Staphylococcus epidermidis, gentamicin-resistant and susceptible strains.

Background The antimicrobial concentration required to kill all the bacteria in a biofilm, known as the minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC), is typically determined in vitro by exposing the biofilm to serial concentrations of antimicrobials for 24 hours or less. Local delivery is expected to cause high local levels for longer than 24 hours. It is unknown if longer antimicrobial exposures require the same concentration to eradicate bacteria in biofilm. Questions/purposes Does MBEC change with increased antimicrobial exposure time? Methods Biofilms were grown for 24 hours using five pathogens (methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and then exposed to four antimicrobials regimens: tobramycin, vancomycin, and tobramycin combined with vancomycin in 3:1 and 1:1 ratios by weight in concentrations of 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000 lg/mL for three durations, 1, 3, and 5 days, in triplicate. MBEC was measured as the lowest concentration that killed all bacteria in the biofilm determined by 21-day subculture. Results MBEC was lower when antimicrobial exposure time was longer. For the staphylococcus species, the MBEC was lower when exposure time was 5 days than 1 day in 11 of 12 antimicrobial/microorganism pairs. The MBEC range for these 11 pairs on Day 1 was 4000 to[8000 lg/mL and on Day 5 was \ 250 to 8000 lg/mL. MBEC for tobramycin/P. aeruginosa was 2000 lg/mL on Day 1 and B 250 lg/mL on Day 5, and for E. coli, 125 lg/mL on Day 1 and B 62.5 on Day 5. Conclusions Although antimicrobial susceptibility was lower for longer exposure times in the microorganisms we studied, confirmation is required for other pathogens. Clinical Relevance One-day MBEC assays may overestimate the local antimicrobial levels needed to kill organisms in biofilm if local levels are sustained at MBEC or above for longer than 24 hours. Future studies are needed to confirm that antimicrobial levels achieved clinically from local delivery are above the MBEC at relevant time points and to confirm that MBEC for in vitro microorganisms accurately represents MBEC of in vivo organisms in an clinical infection.