Evidence Hub

Successful use of bacteriophage therapy for a Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infection in Canada

Weyant RB, Rosen C, Tawil N, Nguyen T, Hunt S, German GJ, Suh GA, Vaughan SD

Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada, 2026

Abstract

Background: Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) pose a significant treatment challenge due to biofilm-associated resistance, which limits antibiotic effectiveness. Bacteriophages, naturally occurring viruses that selectively infect and lyse bacteria, can disrupt biofilms, potentially enhancing antibiotic activity. We present the case of a male in his 70s with a history of total hip arthroplasty in 1973 who developed a chronic methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) PJI. Despite eight surgical interventions and multiple courses of suppressive antibiotics, the infection persisted, necessitating the use of bacteriophage therapy.

Methods: The patient's MSSA isolate was sent to a bacteriophage laboratory in Quebec, which identified effective bacteriophages, and a two-bacteriophage cocktail was selected. Following approval by Health Canada and the University of Calgary (REB23-1733), bacteriophages were administered during a planned incision and drainage (I&D). Locally, bacteriophage was applied topically into the hip, followed by 2 weeks of twice-daily intravenous bacteriophage therapy with standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics.

Results: Therapy was well tolerated except for initial mild rigors. Now, 24 weeks after bacteriophage administration, there is cessation of pain, normalization of inflammatory markers, and significant improvement in quality of life while continuing on suppressive antibiotics.

Conclusions: Bacteriophage therapy was safe in our case, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free