Phages are an emerging therapy in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections, though many challenges remain, including an incomplete understanding of optimal phage dosing.
Materials and Methods:
We performed an in vitro assessment of how phage dosing as measured by multiplicity of infection (MOI) impacts bacterial growth in planktonic and biofilm conditions using a Staphylococcus epidermidis model. Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 35984 was combined in planktonic and biofilm forms with phage vB_SepM_Alex at varying concentrations, and growth was monitored via spectrophotometry.
Results:
Planktonic bacterial growth was significantly higher when MOI ≤ 0.01 compared with MOI ≥ 10 (p < 0.05). Biofilms with phage dosing at ≤ 104 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL had significantly greater spectrophotometer readings than those dosed at 1010 PFU/mL (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest lower, not higher, phage dosing is associated with greater bacterial persistence. Our study helps inform the dosing and delivery of this alternative form of antibiosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BourgonjenYP, Hooning Van DuyvenbodeJFF, Van DijkB, et al.Long-term outcome of two-stage revision surgery after hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: An observational study. J Bone Jt Infect, 2021; 6(8):379–387; doi: 10.5194/JBJI-6-379-2021
2.
GbejuadeHO, LoveringAM, WebbJC. The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections: A review. Acta Orthopaedica, 2015; 86(2):147–158; doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.966290
VisperasA, SantanaD, KlikaAK, et al.Current treatments for biofilm-associated periprosthetic joint infection and new potential strategies. J Orthop Res, 2022; 40(7):1477–1491; doi: 10.1002/jor.25345
5.
MohamadM, DeabateL, BelaieffW, et al.Prosthetic joint infections due to coagulase-negative staphylococci. Int J Infect, 2015; 3(1):e32883; doi: 10.17795/iji-32883
6.
Svensson MalchauK, TillanderJ, ZaborowskaM, et al.Biofilm properties in relation to treatment outcome in patients with first-time periprosthetic hip or knee joint infection. J Orthop Translat, 2021; 30:31–40; doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2021.05.008
7.
LenguerrandE, WhitehouseMR, KunutsorSK, et al.National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary knee arthroplasty in England and Wales: Evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res, 2022; 11(10):690–699; doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.1110.Bjr-2021-0555.R1
8.
KildowBJ, SpringerBD, BrownTS, et al.Long term results of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic hip infection: A multicenter study. JCM, 2022; 11(6):1657; doi: 10.3390/jcm11061657
9.
KurtzSM, LauE, WatsonH, et al.Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty, 2012; 27(Suppl 8):61–65.e1; doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022
10.
PremkumarA, KolinDA, FarleyKX, et al.Projected economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee in the United States. J Arthroplasty, 2021; 36(5):1484–1489.e3; doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.005
11.
ClarkeAL, De SoirS, JonesJD. The safety and efficacy of phage therapy for bone and joint infections: A systematic review. Antibiotics (Basel), 2020; 9(11):795; doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9110795
12.
MiędzybrodzkiR, BorysowskiJ, Weber-DąbrowskaB, et al.Clinical aspects of phage therapy. Adv Virus Res, 2012; 83:73–121; doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-394438-2.00003-7
13.
CheginiZ, KhoshbayanA, Taati MoghadamM, et al.Bacteriophage therapy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms: A review. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob, 2020; 19(1):45; doi: 10.1186/s12941-020-00389-5
14.
Łusiak-SzelachowskaM, Weber-DąbrowskaB, GórskiA. Bacteriophages and lysins in biofilm control. Virol Sin, 2020; 35(2):125–133; doi: 10.1007/s12250-019-00192-3
15.
LuongT, SalabarriaAC, RoachDR. Phage therapy in the resistance era: Where do we stand and where are we going? Clin Ther, 2020; 42(9):1659–1680; doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.07.014
16.
Petrovic FabijanA, LinRCY, HoJ, et al.Westmead Bacteriophage Therapy Team. Safety of bacteriophage therapy in severe Staphylococcus aureus infection. Nat Microbiol, 2020; 5(3):465–472; doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0634-z
17.
KaisthaSD, UmraoPD. Bacteriophage for mitigation of multiple drug resistant biofilm forming pathogens. Recent Pat Biotechnol, 2016; 10(2):184–194; doi: 10.2174/1872208310666160919122155
18.
NilssonAS. Pharmacological limitations of phage therapy. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 2019; 124(4):218–227; doi: 10.1080/03009734.2019.1688433
19.
SuhGA, LodiseTP, TammaPD, et al.for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group. Considerations for the use of phage therapy in clinical practice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2022; 66(3):e0207121; doi: 10.1128/AAC.02071-21
20.
AbedonST. How simple maths can inform our basic understanding of phage therapy. Clin Infect Dis, 2023; 77(Suppl 5):S401–S406; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad480
NangSC, LinYW, Petrovic FabijanA, et al.Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of phage therapy: A major hurdle to clinical translation. Clinical Microbiology and Infection: The Official Publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2023; 29(6):702–709; doi: 10.1016/J.CMI.2023.01.021
23.
WilliamsDL, BloebaumRD. Observing the biofilm matrix of Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 35984 grown using the CDC biofilm reactor. Microsc Microanal, 2010; 16(2):143–152; doi: 10.1017/S143192760999136X
24.
KropinskiAM, MazzoccoA, WaddellTE, et al.Enumeration of bacteriophages by double agar overlay plaque assay BT — Bacteriophages: Methods and Protocols, Volume 1: Isolation, Characterization, and Interactions. Methods in Molecular Biology, 2009; 501:69–76.
25.
MeloLDR, PintoG, OliveiraF, et al.The protective effect of staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm matrix against phage predation. Viruses, 2020; 12(10); doi: 10.3390/V12101076
26.
CercaN, OliveiraR, AzeredoJ. Susceptibility of Staphylococcus epidermidis planktonic cells and biofilms to the lytic action of staphylococcus bacteriophage K. Lett Appl Microbiol, 2007; 45(3):313–317; doi: 10.1111/J.1472-765X.2007.02190.X
27.
FursovMV, AbdrakhmanovaRO, AntonovaNP, et al.Antibiofilm activity of a broad-range recombinant endolysin LysECD7: In Vitro and In Vivo Study. Viruses, 2020; 12(5); doi: 10.3390/V12050545
KraghKN, AlhedeM, KvichL, et al.Into the well—A close look at the complex structures of a microtiter biofilm and the crystal violet assay. Biofilm, 2019; 1:100006–100006; doi: 10.1016/J.BIOFLM.2019.100006
30.
KheirMM, TanTL, AzboyI, et al.Vancomycin prophylaxis for total joint arthroplasty: Incorrectly dosed and has a higher rate of periprosthetic infection than cefazolin. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2017; 475(7):1767–1774; doi: 10.1007/S11999-017-5302-0
31.
EkdahlC, HanbergerH, HällgrenA, et al.Rapid decrease of free vancomycin in dense staphylococcal cultures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2005; 24(9):596–602; doi: 10.1007/S10096-005-0011-0
32.
KebriaeiR, LehmanSM, ShahRM, et al.Optimization of phage-antibiotic combinations against staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Microbiol Spectr, 2023; 11(3):e0491822; doi: 10.1128/SPECTRUM.04918-22
33.
MorrisJ, KellyN, ElliottL, et al.Evaluation of bacteriophage anti-biofilm activity for potential control of orthopedic implant-related infections caused by staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2019; 20(1):16–24; doi: 10.1089/SUR.2018.135
34.
MannalaGK, RuppM, WalterN, et al.Microbiological and ultrastructural evaluation of bacteriophage 191219 against planktonic, intracellular and biofilm infection with Staphylococcus aureus. Eur Cell Mater, 2022; 43:66–78; doi: 10.22203/ECM.V043A07
35.
FerryT, KolendaC, BataillerC, et al.The Lyon BJI Study group. Case report: Arthroscopic “debridement antibiotics and implant retention” with local injection of personalized phage therapy to salvage a relapsing pseudomonas aeruginosa prosthetic knee infection. Front Med, 2021; 8; doi: 10.3389/FMED.2021.569159
36.
Ramirez-SanchezC, GonzalesF, BuckleyM, et al.Successful Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Prosthetic Joint Infection with Bacteriophage Therapy. Viruses, 2021; 13(6):1182; doi: 10.3390/V13061182
37.
SchoeffelJ, WangEW, GillD, et al.Successful use of salvage bacteriophage therapy for a recalcitrant MRSA knee and hip prosthetic joint infection. Pharmaceuticals, 2022; 15(2):177; doi: 10.3390/PH15020177
38.
VisnapuuA, Van Der GuchtM, WagemansJ, et al.Deconstructing the phage–bacterial biofilm interaction as a basis to establish new antibiofilm strategies. Viruses, 2022; 14(5):1057; doi: 10.3390/v14051057
39.
EskenaziA, LoodC, WubboltsJ, et al.Combination of pre-adapted bacteriophage therapy and antibiotics for treatment of fracture-related infection due to pandrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Nat Commun, 2022; 13(1):302; doi: 10.1038/S41467-021-27656-Z
40.
Van NieuwenhuyseB, GalantC, BrichardB, et al.A case of In Situ phage therapy against staphylococcus aureus in a bone allograft polymicrobial biofilm infection: Outcomes and phage-antibiotic interactions. Viruses, 2021; 13(10):1898; doi: 10.3390/V13101898
41.
TahaM, ArnaudT, LightlyTJ, et al.Combining bacteriophage and vancomycin is efficacious against MRSA biofilm-like aggregates formed in synovial fluid. Front Med, 2023; 10; doi: 10.3389/FMED.2023.1134912
42.
WilsonC, LukowiczR, MerchantS, et al.Quantitative and qualitative assessment methods for biofilm growth: A mini-review. Res Rev J Eng Technol, 2017; 6(4).
43.
BuchholzF, HarmsH, MaskowT. Biofilm research using calorimetry — a marriage made in heaven? Biotechnology Journal, 2010; 5(12):1339–1350; doi: 10.1002/biot.201000287
44.
MiraP, YehP, HallBG. Estimating microbial population data from optical density. PLoS One, 2022; 17(10):e0276040; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276040
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
