Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 12;16(3):e0248231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248231

Clinical features and outcome of Streptococcus agalactiae bone and joint infections over a 6-year period in a French university hospital

Paul Loubet 1,*, Yatrika Koumar 2, Catherine Lechiche 2, Nicolas Cellier 3, Sophie Schuldiner 4, Pascal Kouyoumdjian 3, Jean-Philippe Lavigne 5, Albert Sotto 1
Editor: Sherief Ghozy6
PMCID: PMC7954318  PMID: 33711071

Abstract

Background

Bone and joint infections (BJIs) due to Streptococcus agalactiae are rare but has been described to increase in the past few years. The objective of this study was to describe clinical features and outcomes of cases of S. BJIs.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult cases of S. agalactiae BJIs that occurred between January 2009 and June 2015 in a French university hospital. The treatment success was assessed until 24 months after the end of antibiotic treatment.

Results

Among the 26 patients included, 20 (77%) were male, mean age was 62 years ± 13 and mean Charlson comorbidity index score was 4.9 ± 3.2. Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity (n = 14, 54%). Six had PJI (Prosthetic Joint Infections), five osteosynthesis-associated infections, 11 osteomyelitis and four native septic arthritis.

Eleven patients had a delayed or late infection: six with a prosthetic joint infection and five with an internal fixation device infection. Sixteen patients (62%) had a polymicrobial BJI, most commonly with Gram-positive cocci (75%) notably Staphylococcus aureus (44%). Polymicrobial infections were more frequently found in foot infections (90% vs 44%, p = 0.0184). During the two-year follow-up, three patients died (3/25, 12%) and seven (7/25, 28%) had treatment failure.

Conclusion

Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity. We observed an heterogenous management and a high rate of relapse.

Introduction

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is a well-characterised pathogen of infants and pregnant women. However, invasive GBS infections are increasingly observed in non-pregnant adults (two-thirds of patients) and have become a major health concern [1]. Common clinical manifestations in non-pregnant adults include skin or soft-tissue infections, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, bacteraemia with no identified focus, arthritis and osteomyelitis [1]. GBS septic arthritis in a diabetic patient was first reported in 1940 [2], ever since the burden of GBS in invasive infections such as bone and joint infections (BJIs) is increasing [36]. However, few studies have described arthritis and osteomyelitis infections due to GBS in non-pregnant adults. The objective of this study was to describe clinical characteristics and outcomes of all cases of S. agalactiae BJIs that occurred in our hospital between 2009 and 2015.

Materials and methods

Study population

We retrospectively reviewed all cases of S. agalactiae BJIs in Nîmes University Hospital in the South of France. Our hospital has a 1,979-bed capacity, which includes one orthopaedic surgery department and one infectious diseases unit. All S. agalactiae BJIs including arthritis, osteomyelitis, internal fixation device infections and prosthetic joint infections were identified from the Microbiology Laboratory database using different codes: “Streptococcus”; “bone samples”; “deep samples”; “orthopaedist surgery”; “osteoarticular infection”; “bone infection”. Data were reviewed from January 2009 to June 2015. Those with non-bone and joint infection were excluded.

S. agalactiae BJIs were identified based on past medical history with clinical evidence of infection using biological and/or radiological data, with at least two positive cultures of S. agalactiae identified from deep samples taken during surgery, joint aspirate samples and blood cultures. Prosthetic joint infections were defined according to the IDSA guidelines criteria [7] and classified according to the time from prosthesis implantation to the onset of infection as: early (<3 months), delayed ([3 months–2 years]) and late (>2 years) infections. Internal fixation device infections were classified according to the time of onset after implantation: early (< 3 weeks), delayed ([3–10 weeks]), and late (>10 weeks) [8].

Data collection

All patient files were reviewed between June and September 2017 to collect the following characteristics: sociodemographic, pregnancy and comorbidities (heart failure, chronic liver disease, diabetes mellitus, inflammatory rheumatism, obesity, immunodeficiency, peripheral arterial obstructive disease, and peripheral neuropathy) as well as consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The Charlson comorbidity index (a combined age-comorbidity score used to estimate relative risk of death from prognostic clinical covariates) was calculated for each patient [9].

The location of infection and the presence of prosthetic joint or internal fixation device were recorded. The antimicrobial and/or surgical treatments performed as well as treatment outcomes, assessed at months 3, 6, 12 and 24 after the end of antibiotic treatment, were reviewed for every patient. Outcomes were assessed through phone calls and medical chart.

Treatment failure was defined as either (i) the recurrence of the same prosthetic joint infections by GBS at any time after the first line of medical and surgical treatment (i.e., relapse of infection); (ii) the recurrence of the same prosthetic joint infections because of the presence of a same species with a different antibiogram or another species at any time after the first line of medical and surgical treatment (i.e., reinfection), or (iii) death directly caused by sepsis resulting from active BJI without another known infection.

Specimen collection and microbiological analysis

Deep biopsies samples were obtained during surgery or at patient bedside. Joint fluids, tissue samples, or bone biopsies were crushed, plated on different agar media (Columbia blood agar with 5% sheep blood agar, chocolate, Mueller–Hinton, trypticase soy, MacConkey agar plates and Schaedler tube (BioMerieux, Marcy L’Etoile, France)) and incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 for up to seven days. Bacterial cultures were identified with the Vitek 2 identification card (2009–2013) and the Vitek-MS system (2013–2015) (BioMérieux). The antibiotic susceptibilities of S. agalactiae isolates to amoxicillin, penicillin G, tetracycline, erythromycin, clindamycin, rifampicin, cotrimoxazole, vancomycin and teicoplanin were determined by agar disk diffusion method and interpreted according to the recommendations of the French Society for Microbiology and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing 2017 (http://www.sfm-microbiologie.org).

Statistical analysis

Results are expressed as n (%) for categorical variables and median (minimum; maximum or Interquartile Range (IQR)) or mean (standard deviation (SD)) for continuous variables. Comparisons were done using the Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 6.00 for Mac OS X, (GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval from the Institutional review board of our university hospital was obtained (IRB Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Régional Caremeau, Nîmes, France N°15/06.07). All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consents have been obtained from all the patients included. No identification data are disclosed.

Results

Sociodemographic (Table 1)

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the 26 patients with S. agalactiae bone and joint infection.

Characteristics n = 26
Sex, male, [n(%)] 20 (77)
Median age [years (range)] 62 (27–80)
Comorbidities [n(%)]* 85 (22/26)
    Alcohol abuse 5 (19)
    Tobacco use 10 (38)
    Cardiac failure 2 (8)
    Chronic liver disease 3 (12)
    Diabetes mellitus 14 (54)
    Inflammatory rheumatism 1 (4)
    Pregnancy 0 (0)
    Obesity** 4 (15)
    Immunodeficiency
        HIV 1 (4)
        Solid cancer 4 (15)
        Radiotherapy on infected bone 3 (12)
    Peripheral Arterial Obstructive Disease 7 (27)
    Peripheral neuropathy 8 (31)
    Diabetic foot 8 (31)
Charlson comorbidity Index, [mean (Standard deviation)] 4.9 (0–10)
Clinical features [n(%)]
    Fever (>38°5) 4 (15)
    Purulent discharge 13 (50)
    Erythema 17 (65)
    Pain 14 (54)
    Bacteraemia 4 (15)
    Septic shock 3 (12)
Biological results
    C-reactive Protein, (mg/L) [median (IQR)] 155 (3.6–311)
    White blood cells count > 10 G/L [n(%)] 16 (62)
    White blood cells, (G/L) [median (IQR)] 17 (4.5–24.1)

*Some patients had more than one comorbidity or risk factor.

**Obesity was defined as Body Mass Index > 30 kg/m2.

Overall, 26 patients with S. agalactiae BJIs were identified. Twenty patients (77%) were male, median age was 62 years (range 27–80 years) and mean Charlson comorbidity index was 4.9 (SD 3.2). Most patients (22/26, 85%) had one or more underlying conditions. Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity (14, 54%). The most common risk factors were tobacco use (10, 38%) followed by alcohol abuse (5, 19%). Four patients had solid cancer (15%) among whom three had radiotherapy on a bone that was infected afterwards. None of the patients was pregnant.

Clinical characteristics (Table 1)

Only four patients (15%) had fever above 38.5°C. Local erythema (17, 65%), pain (14, 54%) and purulent discharge (13, 50%) were the most frequent clinical signs. Bacteraemia was noted in four cases (15%) and septic shock in three cases (12%). Biological results showed that most patients had a biological inflammatory syndrome with elevated white blood cells count (16, 62%) and an elevated C-reactive protein (18, 69%) with a median of 155 mg/L (3.6–311 mg/L).

Overall, 15 (58%) patients had native BJI (11 osteomyelitis and four native septic arthritis), six (23%) patients had a prosthetic joint infection (five hip and one knee) and five (19%) patients had an internal fixation device infection (two in the ankle, two in the foot and one in the tibia). All patients with a prosthetic joint or internal fixation device had a delayed or late infection. The mean time between orthopaedic device implantation and infection onset was 137 months (range 4–300). Infections occurred between 4 months to 8 years after implantation for prosthetic joint infections, and between 4 months to 6 years for internal fixation devices.

Native BJIs were located to shoulder, sacrum (pressure ulcer) or sternum joint (n = 1), tibia or knee (n = 2), the majority were diabetic foot infections (8, 31%).

Microbiological characteristics

Almost two-thirds of GBS BJIs were polymicrobial (16, 62%). The most common co-infecting agent was Staphylococcus sp. (9/16, 56%) with S. aureus (7/16) and S. lugdunensis (2/16), and Enterococcus faecalis (3/16, 19%).

Ten of the polymicrobial infections (10/16, 63%) were foot osteomyelitis: two patients with an internal fixation device infection and eight patients with diabetic foot infection. Polymicrobial infections were more frequent in foot infections than in other locations (90% vs 44%, p = 0.0184). Six polymicrobial infections occurred in patients with prosthetic joint or internal fixation devices. There was no difference in polymicrobial infections rate between native (6/11, 54%) and prosthetic joint or internal fixation device infections (10/15, 67%) (p = 0.53).

All S. agalactiae isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin, benzylpenicillin, vancomycin and teicoplanin. Sixty percent of isolates were resistant to tetracycline, 35% to erythromycin and 20% to clindamycin. Only 14 isolates were tested for rifampicin: 8 (57%) were susceptible, four (29%) intermediate and two were resistant (14%). Rifampicin resistance was associated with cotrimoxazole resistance in both isolates, in addition to erythromycin resistance in one case and tetracycline resistance in the other.

In the three patients who died, one S. agalactiae strain was susceptible to all the antibiotics tested, one strain was only resistant to tetracycline and one strain was resistant to tetracycline, erythromycin and intermediate to rifampicin.

Management (Tables 2 and 3)

Table 2. Medical management and outcomes of the 10 monomicrobial S. agalactiae bone and joint infections.

Localisation Initial antibiotic therapy (route of administration) Duration Final antibiotic therapy (route of administration) Duration Outcome
Prosthetic joint infections Hip Ofloxacin (oral)* 4 days Amoxicillin + Gentamycin (IV) 4 days Death
Hip Vancomycin + Cefotaxime* (IV) 2 days Amoxicillin + Rifampicin (oral) 12 weeks Reinfection
Hip Vancomycin + Gentamycin *(IV) 6 days Vancomycin (IV) 12 weeks Reinfection
Hip Linezolid (IV)* 1 day no - Death
Internal fixation device infection Ankle Amoxicillin/Clav+ Clindamycin (oral) 4 weeks no - Remission
Native bone/joint infection Foot Amoxicillin/Clav (IV)* 2 weeks Clindamycin + Rifampicin (oral) 12 weeks Remission
Sternum Amoxicillin + Gentamycin* (IV) 12 days Amoxicillin + clindamycin (oral) 8 weeks Remission
Tibia Pristinamycin (oral) 6 weeks no - Remission
Knee Amoxicillin + Gentamycin* (IV) 10 days Amoxicillin (oral) 3 weeks Death
Shoulder Amoxicillin + Gentamycin* (IV) 7 days Clindamycin (oral) 5 weeks Remission

IV: Intraveinous, clav: Clavulanic acid

* probabilistic treatment.

Table 3. Medical management and outcomes of the16 polymicrobial infections associated with S. agalactiae BJI.

Localisation Initial antibiotic therapy (route of administration) Duration Definite antibiotic therapy (route of administration) Duration Outcomes
Prosthetic joint infections Knee Vancomycin + ceftriaxone + gentamycin (IV)* 4 days Cotrimoxazole + Rifampicin (oral) 12 weeks Remission
Hip Vancomycin + Imipenem (IV)* 4 days Clindamycin + Fusidic acid (oral) 12 weeks Lost to follow-up
Internal fixation device infection Ankle Rifampicin + pristinamycin (oral) 6 weeks No - Remission
Foot Amoxicillin (IV)* 7 days Levofloxacin + rifampicin (oral) 6 weeks Remission
Foot Vancomycin + ceftriaxone (IV)* 2 days Clindamycin + rifampicin (oral) 6 weeks Remission
Tibia Vancomycin (IV)* 1 day Clindamycin (oral) 6 weeks Remission
Native bone/joint infections Foot AMC + ofloxacin (oral) 18 days no - Relapse
Knee Vancomycin + Gentamycin (IV)* 3 days Amoxicillin + rifampicin (oral) 4 weeks Remission
Sacrum Linezolid + Cotrimoxazole (oral) 4 weeks No - Remission
Foot AMC + Ofloxacin (oral 11 weeks No - Remission
Foot AMC + Ofloxacin (oral) 6 weeks No - Relapse
Tibia Amox/Clav (oral)* 4 days Rifampicin + levofloxacin (oral) 6 weeks Remission
Foot Amoxicillin + Cotrimoxazole (oral) 5 weeks No - Relapse
Foot PIP/Tazobactam + Vancomycin (oral)* 6 days AMC + Ofloxacin (oral) 3 weeks Remission
Foot PIP/Tazobactam (IV)* 3 weeks Ceftriaxone + Metronidazole (IV) 3 weeks Relapse
Foot AMC + Ofloxacin (oral) 6 weeks no - Relapse

IV: Intravenous, AMC: Amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, PIP: Piperacillin.

* probabilistic treatment.

Surgical treatment was performed in all six prosthetic joint infections: four had two-stage re-implantation (one died before the second prosthetic implantation); one had a one-stage re-implantation; one had conservative treatment (debridement only). All internal fixation devices were removed surgically with bone debridement. Half of the native bone/joint infections (7/15, 47%) had a surgical debridement.

All but two patients with prosthetic joint infections underwent probabilistic antibiotic regimen via a combination of vancomycin with a beta-lactam (ceftriaxone, cefotaxime or imipenem) and/or aminoglycoside (gentamicin). One patient had an initial ofloxacin monotherapy for a sepsis of unknown origin but switched to a combination of amoxicillin and gentamycin when S. agalactiae bacteraemia was diagnosed at day 4. The second patient had linezolid initial monotherapy having recently been treated with this antibiotic for a haematoma infected by E. faecalis and S. aureus in front of the prosthetic joint.

In patients with internal fixation device infections, two had empiric treatment of intravenous vancomycin (monotherapy or combined with ceftriaxone) and the other three patients received adapted oral therapy. Among the 15 patients with native bone/joint infections, adapted antibiotic treatment was given to seven patients and an initial empiric treatment was given to the other eight patients of intravenous vancomycin combined with gentamicin or piperacillin/tazobactam, amoxicillin combined with gentamicin, piperacillin/tazobactam in monotherapy or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in monotherapy.

Clinical outcomes (Tables 2 and 3)

One patient was lost to follow-up. Follow-up was complete for the 25 remaining patients. Among them, three died (3/25, 12%), 15 were in remission (15/25, 60%), and seven had treatment failure (7/25, 28%) of whom five had polymicrobial infection on a diabetic foot. Treatment failure were relapse in five patients (including polymicrobial infection with S. agalactiae in two cases) and reinfection in two cases. The latter two patients had hip prosthesis infection, both whom had had their prosthesis removed via a 2-stage revision strategy. In the first patient, M. morganii and S. epidermidis were identified during the second stage re-implantation. The other patient relapsed eight months after the second re-prosthesis implantation from E. faecalis infection.

Neither diabetes mellitus (p = 0.13) nor concomitant bacteraemia at the time of diagnosis (p = 0.28) were statistically associated with treatment failure.

All three patients who died had a high Charlson score (from 8 to 11) and a monomicrobial S. agalactiae infection. One had a native knee infection and two had a hip prosthesis infection. Both dead when their prosthetic joint were removed.

Discussion

S. agalactiae is a growing cause of invasive infections in adults. We report 26 S. agalactiae BJIs from January 2009 to June 2015. Most of the infections occurred in patients with comorbidities. Diabetes mellitus is a known major risk factor for GBS BJIs, present in 20 to 48% of patients [6,1012] and associated with unfavourable clinical outcome [10].

Two-thirds of the patients had polymicrobial infection (mainly with S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci) which differs from the series of Seng et al. including 37 cases of BJIs due to S. agalactiae that were usually monomicrobial infections [10]. The rate of bacteraemia did not differ between monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections and was similar to that reported in the series of Seng (15%) [10]. In contrast to results found by Fiaux et al. [13], concomitant bacteraemia at the time of diagnosis did not negatively impact the outcome for streptococcal prosthetic infections.

The management of GBS BJIs was very heterogeneous in our patients depending on the time until infection, the presence of orthopaedical device or multiple bacteria. Fiaux et al. suggested that rifampicin combined with another agent, especially levofloxacin, was an effective and well-tolerated treatment in their series of 95 streptococcal prosthetic joint infections [13]. In our study, among monomicrobial S. agalactiae BJI, two combinations with rifampicin were used, once with a good outcome and the second with a relapse with other bacteria. In polymicrobial BJI with S. agalactiae and S. aureus, four oral combined antibiotic treatments with rifampicin and a second agent were given with a good outcome. Previous studies have shown that rifampicin was active against the majority of Streptococcus strains [10,13]. In our experience, only 57% of tested strains were susceptible to this antibiotic. This result suggests that rifampicin should be tested in order to preferentially propose this antibiotic in the GBS prosthetic BJIs therapeutic regimen.

The rate of relapse observed in our study was high (27%), in accordance with rates reported in the literature (18–32.7%) [10,13,14] which is probably due to the fact that 5 out of 7 relapses occurred in patients with diabetic foot infection and a polymicrobial infection. Our mortality rate was high (12%) but comparable to other studies [14,15]. Interestingly, the three patients who died with a S. agalactiae BJI in our study had a Charlson score > 8. S. agalactiae related BJIs are known to be more severe with a poorer outcome as showed by Zeller et al. In 2009, this team described 24 cases of S. agalactiae prosthetic hip infections, compared to 115 other-pathogens cases. Their findings showed that S. agalactiae prosthetic hip infection had a poorer outcome compared to other-pathogens [14].

This work had some limitations. First, this was a monocentric study in mainland France, with an observational retrospective design and a small sample size. Second, the studied population was heterogeneous with monomicrobial and polymicrobial infections, native and prosthetic joints infections, including diabetic foot infections, which makes management recommendations difficult.

Conclusion

We observed an heterogenous management and a high rate of relapse in our patients with S. agalactiae BJIs probably due to the fact that infections were often polymicrobial diabetic foot infection.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sarah Kabani for editing the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Edwards MS, Baker CJ. Group B streptococcal infections in elderly adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:839–47. 10.1086/432804 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rantz LA. Suppurative arthritis due to a hemolytic Streptococcus of the Lancefield Group B; A case report. Ann Intern Med. 1940;13:1744. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Phares CR, Lynfield R, Farley MM, et al. Epidemiology of invasive group B streptococcal disease in the United States, 1999–2005. JAMA 2008;299:2056–65. 10.1001/jama.299.17.2056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tazi A, Morand PC, Réglier-Poupet H, et al. Invasive group B streptococcal infections in adults, France (2007–2010). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17:1587–9. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03628.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Skoff TH, Farley MM, Petit S, et al. Increasing burden of invasive group B streptococcal disease in nonpregnant adults, 1990–2007. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:85–92. 10.1086/599369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Oppegaard O, Skrede S, Mylvaganam H, Kittang BR. Temporal trends of β-haemolytic streptococcal osteoarticular infections in western Norway. BMC Infect Dis 2016;16:535. 10.1186/s12879-016-1874-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:e1–25. 10.1093/cid/cis803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zimmerli W. Clinical presentation and treatment of orthopaedic implant-associated infection. J Intern Med. 2014;276:111–9. 10.1111/joim.12233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Seng P, Vernier M, Gay A, Pinelli P-O, Legré R, Stein A. Clinical features and outcome of bone and joint infections with streptococcal involvement: 5-year experience of interregional reference centres in the South of France. New Microbes New Infect. 2016;12:8–17. 10.1016/j.nmni.2016.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kernéis S, Plainvert C, Barnier J-P, et al. Clinical and microbiological features associated with group B Streptococcus bone and joint infections, France 2004–2014. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;36:1679–84. 10.1007/s10096-017-2983-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Camuset G, Picot S, Jaubert J, et al. Invasive Group B Streptococcal Disease in Non-pregnant Adults, Réunion Island, 2011. Int J Infect Dis. 2015;35:46–50. 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fiaux E, Titecat M, Robineau O, et al. Outcome of patients with streptococcal prosthetic joint infections with special reference to rifampicin combinations. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:568. 10.1186/s12879-016-1889-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zeller V, Lavigne M, Biau D, et al. Outcome of group B streptococcal prosthetic hip infections compared to that of other bacterial infections. Joint Bone Spine 2009;76:491–6. 10.1016/j.jbspin.2008.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nolla JM, Gomez-Vaquero C, Corbella X, et al. Group B Streptococcus (Streptococcus agalactiae) pyogenic arthritis in nonpregnant adults. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003;82:119–28. 10.1097/00005792-200303000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sherief Ghozy

4 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36123

Clinical features and outcome of Streptococcus agalactiae bone and joint infections over a 6-year period in a French University Hospital

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Loubet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I would like to thank you for your efforts; however, as raised by reviewer 1, there are major concerns about your work.

Kindly respond to all comments carefully and show what your findings will be adding to the current literature.

Without a clear response to all comments, I am afraid that the manuscript cannot move forward.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sherief Ghozy, M.D., Ph.D. candidate

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "Approval from the Institutional review board of our university hospital was obtained (IRB N°15/06.07). All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consents have been obtained. No identification data are disclosed.".   

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. Please include the date(s) on which you accessed the databases or records to obtain the data used in your study.

5. Please report any exclusion criteria used to select patients in your study.

6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. This manuscript is a retrospectively identified case series of 26 patients (62% with polymicrobial infection) with Streptococcus agalactiae bone and joint infections (BJIs), describing their clinical features and treatment outcomes from a single center.

2. The manuscript lacks of any novel information regarding epidemiology, clinical features, or treatment outcomes of bone and joint infections caused by S. agalactiae.

3. The conclusions in the abstract are not supported by data presented.

4. "S. agalactiae BJIs mainly affected diabetic patients" - In a case series with no comparison group, this statement is unwarranted. A more appropriate statement would be "Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity among these patients."

5. "Treatment failure was frequent, probably due to the complexity of BJIs requiring a multidisciplinary management." There is no statistical analysis presented to support the statement that complexity of BJIs requiring multidisciplinary management was associated with treatment failure.

6. "The most common risk factors were tobacco use (10, 38%) followed by alcohol abuse (5, 19%)." Risk factors for what?

Reviewer #2: We had pleasure to read the article which is rich of informations that help to better understand the BJIs in the context of a french teaching Hospital. The methodology was rigorously performed and results are clearly shown and verifiable. In order to increase more the value of the article, we had some suggestions that doesn’t affect substantively the study but just the shape.

1- The first time the acronym PTI appear in the article, it doesn’t follow by the signification. So it will be better to explain so early the explanation of the abbreviation.

2- The rate of deaths appear in the article to be 2/25 or the actual patients included in the study is 26. The explanation of why you used 25 rather than 26 appear at line 173 with the one patient lost of follow up.

The authors should look how to early inform this in the results of the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Franck David ABOUNA

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 12;16(3):e0248231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248231.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Feb 2021

Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Authors’ response: We have checked these points.

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "Approval from the Institutional review board of our university hospital was obtained (IRB N°15/06.07). All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consents have been obtained. No identification data are disclosed.".

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

Authors’ response: As requested, the full name of the IRB has been added and the ethic statement moved to the materials and methods section.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Authors’ response: As requested, we have specified the type of consent we obtained

4. Please include the date(s) on which you accessed the databases or records to obtain the data used in your study.

Authors’ response: As requested, dates on which we accessed the records to obtain the data were added in the materiel and methods section.

5. Please report any exclusion criteria used to select patients in your study.

Authors’ response: As requested, exclusion criteria has been added.

Page 3, line 71 : Those with non-bone and joint infection were excluded.

6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

At this time, please address the following queries :

a. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Authors’ response: As requested, we have clarified the financial disclosure.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Authors’ response: As requested this change has been done.

Reviewer #1:

This manuscript is a retrospectively identified case series of 26 patients (62% with polymicrobial infection) with Streptococcus agalactiae bone and joint infections (BJIs), describing their clinical features and treatment outcomes from a single center.

2. The manuscript lacks of any novel information regarding epidemiology, clinical features, or treatment outcomes of bone and joint infections caused by S. agalactiae.

Authors’ response: The literature on bone and joint infections specifically due to GBS is scarce. To the best of our knowledge, the largest series to date is the one from Kerneis et al (Ref 11 in our article) published in 2017 including 163 patients. In this paper there are only patients’ description and data on resistances of the isolated strains of S. agalactiae. In the article from Seng et al. (Ref 10 in our article) presenting clinical features and outcomes of bone and joint infection with Streptococcus involvement there is no specific data on the treatment used and clinical outcomes of the 37 GBS bone and joint infections included. Conversely to these two works, our manuscript displays specific information on antibiotics treatment used and clinical outcomes in mono (Table 2) and polymicrobial (Table 3) GBS BJI patients.

3. The conclusions in the abstract are not supported by data presented.

Authors’ response: We have made the following changes in the conclusion of the abstract (see also comment 4 and 5)

Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity. We observed an heterogenous management and a high rate of relapse.

4. "S. agalactiae BJIs mainly affected diabetic patients" - In a case series with no comparison group, this statement is unwarranted. A more appropriate statement would be "Diabetes mellitus was the most common comorbidity among these patients."

Authors’ response: We have made the change suggested by the reviewer.

5. "Treatment failure was frequent, probably due to the complexity of BJIs requiring a multidisciplinary management." There is no statistical analysis presented to support the statement that complexity of BJIs requiring multidisciplinary management was associated with treatment failure.

Authors’ response: As suggested by the reviewer we have changed this sentence by the following : “We observed an heterogenous management and a high rate of relapse.”

6. "The most common risk factors were tobacco use (10, 38%) followed by alcohol abuse (5, 19%)." Risk factors for what?

Authors’ response: We agree with the reviewer that this sentence is not very clear and is furthermore not relevant for the topic . We have decided to remove this sentence from the text and the term “risk factor” from Table 1.

Reviewer #2:

We had pleasure to read the article which is rich of informations that help to better understand the BJIs in the context of a french teaching Hospital. The methodology was rigorously performed and results are clearly shown and verifiable. In order to increase more the value of the article, we had some suggestions that doesn’t affect substantively the study but just the shape.

1- The first time the acronym PTI appear in the article, it doesn’t follow by the signification. So it will be better to explain so early the explanation of the abbreviation.

Authors’ response: As requested by the reviewer, we have added the meaning of PJI in the abstract.

2- The rate of deaths appear in the article to be 2/25 or the actual patients included in the study is 26. The explanation of why you used 25 rather than 26 appear at line 173 with the one patient lost of follow up.

The authors should look how to early inform this in the results of the study.

Authors’ response: The total of 25 is only used for clinical outcomes and this is where we chose to explain that one patient was lost to follow-up. We think it might be confusing to explain the lost to follow-up earlier in the results section as the first parts of the results are displayed on 26 patients.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PlosOne.docx

Decision Letter 1

Sherief Ghozy

23 Feb 2021

Clinical features and outcome of Streptococcus agalactiae bone and joint infections over a 6-year period in a French University Hospital

PONE-D-20-36123R1

Dear Dr. Loubet,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sherief Ghozy, M.D., Ph.D. candidate

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Sherief Ghozy

4 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36123R1

Clinical features and outcome of Streptococcus agalactiae bone and joint infections over a 6-year period in a French University Hospital

Dear Dr. Loubet:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sherief Ghozy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES