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

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.

We evaluated the effectiveness of different sizes of bioactive glass S53P4 against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms grown on metal discs in vitro. S. aureus biofilms were cultivated on titanium discs. BAG-S53P4 (0.5-0.8 mm and <45 µm) were placed in contact with the discs containing biofilms. Glass beads (0.5 mm) were used as a control. After each interval, the pH from each sample was measured. Colony forming units were counted for the biofilm recovery verification. In parallel, we tested the activity of bioactive glass against S. aureus planktonic cells. We found that BAG-S53P4 can suppress S. aureus biofilm formation on titanium discs in vitro. The suppression rate of biofilm cells by BAG-S53P4 <45 µm was significantly higher than by BAG-S53P4 0.5-0.8 mm. BAG-S53P4 has a clear growth-inhibitory effect on S. aureus biofilms. BAG-S53P4 <45 µm is more efficient against biofilm growth in vitro comparing with BAG-S53P4 0.5-0.8 mm. Bioactive glass S53P4 has potential to be used as bone substitute for the resolution of infection complications in joint replacement surgeries and treatment of chronic osteomyelitis.

The bacteria in implant-related infections can evade host defenses by forming biofilms. The more we understand biofilm behavior, the better we can fight against then clinically. In vitro models for biofilms allow tests simulating in vivo conditions. In this study we evaluated the Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentration-High Throughput Plates (MBEC TM -HTP) as biofilm in vitro model for studies of implant associated infections. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms were grown on MBEC TM -HTP. To ensure the biofilm formation, antibiotic susceptibility tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was carried out. Susceptibility tests were carried out using gentamicin, vancomycin, rifampicin, fosfomycin, clindamycin, and linezolid. Colony forming units counting were carried out. Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and biofilm inhibitory concentration (BIC) were estimated. The CFU counting showed potency of rifampicin and daptomycin against S. epidermidis biofilms and rifampicin against S. aureus biofilms. SEM images showed proteic material in contact with cells. The differences between BIC and MIC demonstrated the biofilm formation as well as the SEM images. Rifampicin and daptomycin are good choices against biofilm related infections. Moreover, after suggested modifications, the model used in this study is eligible to further studies of implant associated infections. ß