Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review

The expert panel on diabetic foot infection (DFI) of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot conducted a systematic review seeking all published reports relating to any type of treatment for infection of the foot in persons with diabetes published as of 30 June 2014. This review, conducted with both PubMed and EMBASE, was used to update an earlier one undertaken on 30 June 2010 using the same search string. Eligible publications included those that had outcome measures reported for both a treated and a control population that were managed either at the same time, or as part of a before-and-after case design. We did not include studies that contained only information related to definition or diagnosis, but not treatment, of DFI. The current search identified just seven new articles meeting our criteria that were published since the 33 identified with the previous search, making a total of 40 articles from the world literature. The identified articles included 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies with concurrent controls, and included studies on the use of surgical procedures, topical antiseptics, negative pressure wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen. Among the studies were 15 RCTs that compared outcomes of treatment with new antibiotic preparations compared with a conventional therapy in the management of skin and soft tissue infection. In addition, 10 RCTs and 1 cohort study compared different treatments for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Results of comparisons of different antibiotic regimens generally demonstrated that newly introduced antibiotic regimens appeared to be as effective as conventional therapy (and also more cost-effective in one study), but one study failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of a new antibiotic compared with that of a standard agent. Overall, the available literature was both limited in both the number of studies and the quality of their design. Thus, our systematic review revealed little evidence upon which to make recommendations for treatment of DFIs. There is a great need for further well-designed trials that will provide robust data upon which to make decisions about the most appropriate treatment of both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis in diabetic patients.

Systemic antibiotics for treating diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

Foot infection is the most common cause of non-traumatic amputation in people with diabetes. Most diabetic foot infections (DFIs) require systemic antibiotic therapy and the initial choice is usually empirical. Although there are many antibiotics available, uncertainty exists about which is the best for treating DFIs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects and safety of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of DFIs compared with other systemic antibiotics, topical foot care or placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2015 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA; The Cochrane Library), the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED; The Cochrane Library), unpublished literature in OpenSIGLE and ProQuest Dissertations and on-going trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of systemic antibiotics (oral or parenteral) in people with a DFI. Primary outcomes were clinical resolution of the infection, time to its resolution, complications and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for dichotomous data and, when sufficient numbers of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 3791 participants. Studies were heterogenous in study design, population, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes. We grouped the sixteen different antibiotic agents studied into six categories: 1) anti-pseudomonal penicillins (three trials); 2) broad-spectrum penicillins (one trial); 3) cephalosporins (two trials); 4) carbapenems (four trials); 5) fluoroquinolones (six trials); 6) other antibiotics (four trials).Only 9 of the 20 trials protected against detection bias with blinded outcome assessment. Only one-third of the trials provided enough information to enable a judgement about whether the randomisation sequence was adequately concealed. Eighteen out of 20 trials received funding from pharmaceutical industry-sponsors.The included studies reported the following findings for clinical resolution of infection: there is evidence from one large trial at low risk of bias that patients receiving ertapenem with or without vancomycin are more likely to have resolution of their foot infection than those receiving tigecycline (RR 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.99; 955 participants). It is unclear if there is a difference in rates of clinical resolution of infection between: 1) two alternative anti-pseudomonal penicillins (one trial); 2) an anti-pseudomonal penicillin and a broad-spectrum penicillin (one trial) or a carbapenem (one trial); 3) a broad-spectrum penicillin and a second-generation cephalosporin (one trial); 4) cephalosporins and other beta-lactam antibiotics (two trials); 5) carbapenems and anti-pseudomonal penicillins or broad-spectrum penicillins (four trials); 6) fluoroquinolones and anti-pseudomonal penicillins (four trials) or broad-spectrum penicillins (two trials); 7) daptomycin and vancomycin (one trial); 8) linezolid and a combination of aminopenicillins and beta-lactamase inhibitors (one trial); and 9) clindamycin and cephalexin (one trial).Carbapenems combined with anti-pseudomonal agents produced fewer adverse effects than anti-pseudomonal penicillins (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84; 1 trial). An additional trial did not find significant differences in the rate of adverse events between a carbapenem alone and an anti-pseudomonal penicillin, but the rate of diarrhoea was lower for participants treated with a carbapenem (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93; 1 trial). Daptomycin produced fewer adverse effects than vancomycin or other semi-synthetic penicillins (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.94; 1 trial). Linezolid produced more adverse effects than ampicillin-sulbactam (RR 2.66; 95% CI 1.49 to 4.73; 1 trial), as did tigecycline compared to ertapenem with or without vancomycin (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.60; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in safety for the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the relative effects of different systemic antibiotics for the treatment of foot infections in diabetes is very heterogeneous and generally at unclear or high risk of bias. Consequently it is not clear if any one systemic antibiotic treatment is better than others in resolving infection or in terms of safety. One non-inferiority trial suggested that ertapenem with or without vancomycin is more effective in achieving clinical resolution of infection than tigecycline. Otherwise the relative effects of different antibiotics are unclear. The quality of the evidence is low due to limitations in the design of the included trials and important differences between them in terms of the diversity of antibiotics assessed, duration of treatments, and time points at which outcomes were assessed. Any further studies in this area should have a blinded assessment of outcomes, use standardised criteria to classify severity of infection, define clear outcome measures, and establish the duration of treatment.

Ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of diabetic foot infections: the CAPTURE study experience

BACKGROUND

To ascertain which demographic, clinical, and microbiological factors might affect clinical outcomes of patients with diabetic foot infections, excluding known osteomyelitis, by analysing Clinical Assessment Program and Teflaro® Utilization Registry study data of patients treated with ceftaroline fosamil.

METHODS

At participating study centres, we collected data by randomized selection and chart review, including patient demographics, co-morbidities, infecting pathogens, antibiotic use, surgical interventions, and clinical response. Evaluable patients were those with data sufficient to determine clinical outcome. Clinical success was defined as clinical cure with no use of other antibiotics or clinical improvement with a switch to oral antibiotic therapy at the end of intravenous ceftaroline fosamil treatment.

RESULTS

Among 201 patients (mean age 61.7 years, mean body mass index 33.2 and 57% male patients), 40% had peripheral vascular disease. Prior antibiotic therapy had been given to 161 (80%) of the patients, most commonly with vancomycin and/or piperacillin-tazobactam. Patients received ceftaroline fosamil for mean duration of 6.1 days (range 1-30), as monotherapy in 130 (65%) patients and concurrently with other antibiotics in 71 (35%). Bacterial pathogens were identified in 114 (57%) of the patients; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus were isolated from 56 (49%) and 28 (25%) of culture-positive patients respectively. Clinical success was noted in 81% of patients and was not significantly associated with co-morbidities, pathogen type, or need for surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceftaroline fosamil treatment of diabetic foot infections was associated with high clinical success, including inpatients with obesity, co-morbidities, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or mixed infections or requiring surgical intervention.

The role of anaerobes in diabetic foot infections

Diabetic foot infections (DFI) are a common cause of morbidity and, on occasion, even mortality. Infection can be either mono- or polymicrobial, with a wide variety of potential pathogens. Anaerobes may be involved, particularly in wounds that are deeper or more chronic, and are more frequently identified when using modern molecular techniques, such as 16s PCR and pyrosequencing. It remains unclear whether the presence of anaerobes in DFI leads to more severe manifestations, or if these organisms are largely colonizers associated with the presence of greater degrees of tissue ischemia and necrosis. Commonly used empiric antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections is generally broad-spectrum and usually has activity against the most frequently identified anaerobes, such as Peptostreptococcus and Bacteroides species. Adequate surgical debridement and, when needed, foot revascularization may be at least as important as the choice of antibiotic to achieve a successful treatment outcome.

In diabetic foot infections antibiotics are to treat infection, not to heal wounds

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot ulcers, especially when they become infected, are a leading cause of morbidity and may lead to severe consequences, such as amputation. Optimal treatment of these diabetic foot problems usually requires a multidisciplinary approach, typically including wound debridement, pressure off-loading, glycemic control, surgical interventions and occasionally other adjunctive measures.

AREAS COVERED

Antibiotic therapy is required for most clinically infected wounds, but not for uninfected ulcers. Unfortunately, clinicians often prescribe antibiotics when they are not indicated, and even when indicated the regimen is frequently broader spectrum than needed and given for longer than necessary. Many agents are available for intravenous, oral or topical therapy, but no single antibiotic or combination is optimal. Overuse of antibiotics has negative effects for the patient, the health care system and society. Unnecessary antibiotic therapy further promotes the problem of antibiotic resistance.

EXPERT OPINION

The rationale for prescribing topical, oral or parenteral antibiotics for patients with a diabetic foot wound is to treat clinically evident infection. Available published evidence suggests that there is no reason to prescribe antibiotic therapy for an uninfected foot wound as either prophylaxis against infection or in the hope that it will hasten healing of the wound.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: an uncommon cause of diabetic foot infection

BACKGROUND

Pseudomonas aeruginosa has traditionally been considered a common pathogen in diabetic foot infection (DFI), yet the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline for DFI states that "empiric therapy directed at P aeruginosa is usually unnecessary." The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency of P aeruginosa isolated from bone or tissue cultures from patients with DFI.

METHODS

This study is a cross-sectional survey of diabetic patients presenting with a foot infection to an urban county hospital between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. All of the patients had at least one debridement procedure during which tissue or bone cultures from operative or bedside debridements were obtained. The χ(2) test and the t test of means were used to determine relationships between variables and the frequency of P aeruginosa in culture.

RESULTS

The median number of bacteria isolated from DFI was two. Streptococcus spp and Staphylococcus aureus were the most commonly isolated organisms; P aeruginosa was isolated in only five of 112 patients (4.5%). The presence of P aeruginosa was not associated with the patient's age, glycosylated hemoglobin level, tobacco abuse, the presence of osteomyelitis, a prescription for antibiotic drugs in the preceding 3 months, or the type of operative procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pseudomonas aeruginosa was an infrequent isolate from DFI in this urban, underserved diabetic population. The presence of P aeruginosa was not associated with any measured risk factors. By introducing a clinical practice guideline, we hope to discourage frontline providers from using routine antipseudomonal antibiotic drugs for DFI.

Microbiology of diabetic foot infections: from Louis Pasteur to 'crime scene investigation'

Were he alive today, would Louis Pasteur still champion culture methods he pioneered over 150 years ago for identifying bacterial pathogens? Or, might he suggest that new molecular techniques may prove a better way forward for quickly detecting the true microbial diversity of wounds? As modern clinicians faced with treating complex patients with diabetic foot infections (DFI), should we still request venerated and familiar culture and sensitivity methods, or is it time to ask for newer molecular tests, such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing? Or, are molecular techniques as yet too experimental, non-specific and expensive for current clinical use? While molecular techniques help us to identify more microorganisms from a DFI, can they tell us 'who done it?', that is, which are the causative pathogens and which are merely colonizers? Furthermore, can molecular techniques provide clinically relevant, rapid information on the virulence of wound isolates and their antibiotic sensitivities? We herein review current knowledge on the microbiology of DFI, from standard culture methods to the current era of rapid and comprehensive 'crime scene investigation' (CSI) techniques.

β-Lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors versus carbapenems for the treatment of sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data on the relative efficacy of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors (BL/BLIs) versus carbapenems are scant.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any BL/BLI versus any carbapenem for the treatment of sepsis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A broad search was conducted with no restrictions on language, publication status or date. Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Assessment of risk of bias was performed using the domain-based approach. Subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity and focus on patient groups more likely to harbour ESBL-positive bacteria. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated and pooled.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs were included. There was no difference between BL/BLIs and carbapenems in terms of mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.20), without heterogeneity. No differences were observed with regard to clinical or microbiological failure and bacterial superinfections. The results were not affected by risk of bias. No differences were detected in the subgroups of patients with nosocomial infections, Gram-negative infections and neutropenic fever. Adverse events requiring discontinuation were more common with BL/BLIs, on account of an increased incidence of diarrhoea. However, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.87) was more frequent with carbapenems and seizures were more frequent with imipenem (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in efficacy between BL/BLIs and carbapenems exist in RCTs including patient populations with a certain, albeit unknown, rate of ESBL-positive bacteria causing infections.

Contribution of infection and peripheral artery disease to severity of diabetic foot ulcers in Chinese patients

AIM

The objective of the current ongoing study was to evaluate the characteristics of diabetic patients with newly diagnosed foot ulcer in Burn & Plastic Hospital of PLA General Hospital.

METHODS

A total of 1002 consecutive patients presenting with a new foot ulcer between March 2007 and September 2013 were enrolled. All enrolled patients were classified based on presence or absence of collateral infection, disabling comorbidities and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

RESULTS

Of patients, 70.05% had PAD, which occurred significantly more in elderly adults. Patients with PAD had higher incidence of infection (58.9% vs. 41.5% in non-PAD group) and disabling comorbidities (79% in PAD and 61% in non-PAD; p < 0.038). There was no significant difference observed in depth, size and duration of foot ulcers between the PAD and non-PAD group of enrolled diabetic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic foot ulcer is more prominent in patients with PAD that is further reflected by significantly more underlying cases of infection and disabling comorbidity.

Diabetic foot infections: state-of-the-art

Foot infections are frequent and potentially devastating complications of diabetes. Unchecked, infection can progress contiguously to involve the deeper soft tissues and ultimately the bone. Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are most often the consequence of one or more of the following: peripheral sensory neuropathy, motor neuropathy and gait disorders, peripheral arterial insufficiency or immunological impairments. Infection develops in over half of foot ulcers and is the factor that most often leads to lower extremity amputation. These amputations are associated with substantial morbidity, reduced quality of life and major financial costs. Most infections can be successfully treated with optimal wound care, antibiotic therapy and surgical procedures. Employing evidence-based guidelines, multidisciplinary teams and institution-specific clinical pathways provides the best approach to guide clinicians through this multifaceted problem. All clinicians regularly seeing people with diabetes should have an understanding of how to prevent, diagnose and treat foot infections, which requires familiarity with the pathophysiology of the problem and the literature supporting currently recommended care.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection epidemiology and clinical response from tigecycline soft tissue infection trials

Given increasing resistance, therapeutic options to treat MRSA soft tissue infections should be evaluated. This pooled analysis evaluated data from subjects enrolled in 6 tigecycline clinical trials with documented MRSA complicated skin and skin structure infections or diabetic foot infections (DFIs). Baseline characteristics were compared between subjects with and without molecularly classified community-acquired (CA) MRSA, specifically staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) IV. Clinical response was compared by CA-MRSA designation and treatment group. A total of 378 subjects with MRSA soft tissue infections were identified, including 79 with DFI. A total of 249 (65.9%) were molecularly classified as CA-MRSA. Clinical response rates for MRSA soft tissue infection were similar between tigecycline and vancomycin (treatment difference, 1.0%; 95% confidence interval: -9.3, 12.0) as well as by infection type, SCCmec, and Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) status. Tigecycline demonstrated comparable efficacy for treatment of MRSA soft tissue infections regardless of infection type, SCCmec, or PVL status.

Phase 3 study comparing tigecycline and ertapenem in patients with diabetic foot infections with and without osteomyelitis

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted in subjects with diabetic foot infections without osteomyelitis (primary study) or with osteomyelitis (substudy) to determine the efficacy and safety of parenteral (intravenous [iv]) tigecycline (150 mg once-daily) versus 1 g once-daily iv ertapenem ± vancomycin. Among 944 subjects in the primary study who received ≥1 dose of study drug, >85% had type 2 diabetes; ~90% had Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation infection grade 2 or 3; and ~20% reported prior antibiotic failure. For the clinically evaluable population at test-of-cure, 77.5% of tigecycline- and 82.5% of ertapenem ± vancomycin-treated subjects were cured. Corresponding rates for the clinical modified intent-to-treat population were 71.4% and 77.9%, respectively. Clinical cure rates in the substudy were low (<36%) for a subset of tigecycline-treated subjects with osteomyelitis. Nausea and vomiting occurred significantly more often after tigecycline treatment (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively), resulting in significantly higher discontinuation rates in the primary study (nausea P = 0.007, vomiting P < 0.001). In the primary study, tigecycline did not meet criteria for noninferiority compared with ertapenem ± vancomycin in the treatment of subjects with diabetic foot infections.

Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in non surgical wounds

BACKGROUND

Non surgical wounds include chronic ulcers (pressure or decubitus ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, ischaemic ulcers), burns and traumatic wounds. The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation (i.e. presence of MRSA in the absence of clinical features of infection such as redness or pus discharge) or infection in chronic ulcers varies between 7% and 30%. MRSA colonisation or infection of non surgical wounds can result in MRSA bacteraemia (infection of the blood) which is associated with a 30-day mortality of about 28% to 38% and a one-year mortality of about 55%. People with non surgical wounds colonised or infected with MRSA may be reservoirs of MRSA, so it is important to treat them, however, we do not know the optimal antibiotic regimen to use in these cases.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (such as decreased mortality and improved quality of life) and harms (such as adverse events related to antibiotic use) of all antibiotic treatments in people with non surgical wounds with established colonisation or infection caused by MRSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 March 2013); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (2013, Issue 2); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (2013, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 4 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 12, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013 Week 10); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 8 March 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic treatment with no antibiotic treatment or with another antibiotic regimen for the treatment of MRSA-infected non surgical wounds. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials, and extracted data from the trial reports. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing the binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing the continuous outcomes. We planned to perform the meta-analysis using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review. In these, a total of 47 people with MRSA-positive diabetic foot infections were randomised to six different antibiotic regimens. While these trials included 925 people with multiple pathogens, they reported the information on outcomes for people with MRSA infections separately (MRSA prevalence: 5.1%). The only outcome reported for people with MRSA infection in these trials was the eradication of MRSA. The three trials did not report the review's primary outcomes (death and quality of life) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, use of healthcare resources and time to complete wound healing). Two trials reported serious adverse events in people with infection due to any type of bacteria (i.e. not just MRSA infections), so the proportion of patients with serious adverse events was not available for MRSA-infected wounds. Overall, MRSA was eradicated in 31/47 (66%) of the people included in the three trials, but there were no significant differences in the proportion of people in whom MRSA was eradicated in any of the comparisons, as shown below.1. Daptomycin compared with vancomycin or semisynthetic penicillin: RR of MRSA eradication 1.13; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.25 (14 people).2. Ertapenem compared with piperacillin/tazobactam: RR of MRSA eradication 0.71; 95% CI 0.06 to 9.10 (10 people).3. Moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin/tazobactam followed by amoxycillin/clavulanate: RR of MRSA eradication 0.87; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36 (23 people).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no trials comparing the use of antibiotics with no antibiotic for treating MRSA-colonised non-surgical wounds and therefore can draw no conclusions for this population. In the trials that compared different antibiotics for treating MRSA-infected non surgical wounds, there was no evidence that any one antibiotic was better than the others. Further well-designed RCTs are necessary.

Diagnosis and management of infection in the diabetic foot

Foot infections are common in persons with diabetes mellitus. Most diabetic foot infections occur in a foot ulcer, which serves as a point of entry for pathogens. Unchecked, infection can spread contiguously to involve underlying tissues, including bone. A diabetic foot infection is often the pivotal event leading to lower extremity amputation, which account for about 60% of all amputations in developed countries. Given the crucial role infections play in the cascade toward amputation, all clinicians who see diabetic patients should have at least a basic understanding of how to diagnose and treat this problem.

Diabetic foot infections: the role of microbiology and antibiotic treatment

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for the development of foot infections. Among the risk factors that contribute to the development of diabetic foot infections are local neuropathy, vascular changes and depressed local host defenses. The microbiology of these infections is often complex and can be polymicrobial. Treatment of these infections depends on the severity and extent of infection. Treatment should involve a multi-disciplinary team approach involving surgeons and infectious disease specialists. The current recommendations for treatment are primarily based on expert opinion and consensus rather than clinical trials. No single agent or combination of agents has been shown to be superior to others. The aim of this review is to provide valid options of therapy, especially with regard to newer agents that are currently available for treatment of both soft tissue infections and osteomyelitis.

Efficacy and safety of IV/PO moxifloxacin and IV piperacillin/tazobactam followed by PO amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of diabetic foot infections: results of the RELIEF study

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of two antibiotic regimens in patients with diabetic foot infections (DFIs).

METHODS

Data of a subset of patients enrolled in the RELIEF trial with DFIs requiring surgery and antibiotics were evaluated retrospectively. DFI was diagnosed on the basis of the modified Wagner, University of Texas, and PEDIS classification systems. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous/oral moxifloxacin (MXF, N = 110) 400 mg q.d. or intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam 4.0/0.5 g t.d.s. followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate 875/125 mg b.d. (PIP/TAZ-AMC, N = 96), for 7-21 days until the end of treatment (EOT). The primary endpoint was clinical cure rates in the per-protocol (PP) population at the test-of-cure visit (TOC, 14-28 days after EOT).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the demographic characteristics of PP patients in either treatment group. At TOC, MXF and PIP/TAZ-AMC had similar efficacy in both the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations: MXF: 76.4 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 78.1 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -14.5 %, 9.0 % in the PP population; MXF: 69.9 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 69.1 %; 95 % CI -12.4 %, 12.1 % in the ITT population. The overall bacteriological success rates were similar in both treatment groups (MXF: 71.7 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 71.8 %; 95 % CI -16.9 %, 10.7 %). A similar proportion of patients (ITT population) experienced any adverse events in both treatment groups (MXF: 30.9 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 31.8 %, respectively). Death occurred in three MXF-treated patients and one PIP/TAZ-AMC-treated patient; these were unrelated to the study drugs.

CONCLUSION

Moxifloxacin has shown favorable safety and efficacy profiles in DFI patients and could be an alternative antibiotic therapy in the management of DFI.

CLINICAL TRIAL

NCT00402727.

Contemporary evaluation and management of the diabetic foot

Foot problems in patients with diabetes remain a major public health issue and are the commonest reason for hospitalization of patients with diabetes with prevalence as high as 25%. Ulcers are breaks in the dermal barrier with subsequent erosion of underlying subcutaneous tissue that may extend to muscle and bone, and superimposed infection is a frequent and costly complication. The pathophysiology of diabetic foot disease is multifactorial and includes neuropathy, infection, ischemia, and abnormal foot structure and biomechanics. Early recognition of the etiology of these foot lesions is essential for good functional outcome. Managing the diabetic foot is a complex clinical problem requiring a multidisciplinary collaboration of health care workers to achieve limb salvage. Adequate off-loading, frequent debridement, moist wound care, treatment of infection, and revascularization of ischemic limbs are the mainstays of therapy. Even when properly managed, some of the foot ulcers do not heal and are arrested in a state of chronic inflammation. These wounds can frequently benefit from various adjuvants, such as aggressive debridement, growth factors, bioactive skin equivalents, and negative pressure wound therapy. While these, increasingly expensive, therapies have shown promising results in clinical trials, the results have yet to be translated into widespread clinical practice leaving a huge scope for further research in this field.

2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

Medical management of diabetic foot infections

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a commonly encountered medical problem. They are associated with an increased frequency and length of hospitalization and risk for lower-extremity amputation. Furthermore, they have substantial economic consequences. Patients with diabetes mellitus are particularly susceptible to foot infections because of neuropathy, vascular insufficiency, and diminished neutrophil function. The approach to managing DFIs starts with determining if an infection exists. If an infection exists, then the type, severity, extent of infection, and risk factors for resistant organisms should be determined through history, physical examination, and additional laboratory and radiological testing. Optimal management requires surgical debridement, pressure offloading, effective antibiotic therapy, wound care and moisture, maintaining good vascular supply, and correction of metabolic abnormalities, such as hyperglycemia, through a multidisciplinary team. Empiric antibiotics for DFIs vary based on the severity of the infection, but must include anti-staphylococcal coverage.

Diagnostics and treatment of the diabetic foot

Every 30 s, a lower limb is amputated due to diabetes. Of all amputations in diabetic patients 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer which subsequently deteriorates to a severe infection or gangrene. There is a complexity of factors related to healing of foot ulcers including strategies for treatment of decreased perfusion, oedema, pain, infection, metabolic disturbances, malnutrition, non-weight bearing, wound treatment, foot surgery, and management of intercurrent disease. Patients with diabetic foot ulcer and decreased perfusion do often not have rest pain or claudication and as a consequence non-invasive vascular testing is recommended for early recognition of ulcers in need of revascularisation to achieve healing. A diabetic foot infection is a potentially limb-threatening condition. Infection is diagnosed by the presence or increased rate of signs inflammation. Often these signs are less marked than expected. Imaging studies can diagnose or better define deep, soft tissue purulent collections and are frequently needed to detect pathological findings in bone. The initial antimicrobial treatment as well as duration of treatment is empiric. There is a substantial delay in wound healing in diabetic foot ulcer which has been related to various abnormalities. Several new treatments related to these abnormalities have been explored in wound healing with various successes. An essential part of the strategy to achieve healing is an effective offloading. Many interventions with advanced wound management have failed due to not recognizing the need for effective offloading. A multidisciplinary approach to wounds and foot ulcer has been successfully implemented in different centres with a substantial decrease in amputation rate.

Plectranthus amboinicus and Centella asiatica Cream for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Effects of a topical cream containing P. amboinicus (Lour.) Spreng. (Lamiaceae) and C. asiatica (L.) Urban (Umbelliferae) were evaluated and compared to effects of hydrocolloid fiber wound dressing for diabetic foot ulcers. A single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label study was conducted. Twenty-four type 1 or type 2 diabetes patients aged 20 years or older with Wagner grade 3 foot ulcers postsurgical debridement were enrolled between October 2008 and December 2009. Twelve randomly assigned patients were treated with WH-1 cream containing P. amboinicus and C. asiatica twice daily for two weeks. Another 12 patients were treated with hydrocolloid fiber dressings changed at 7 days or when clinically indicated. Wound condition and safety were assessed at days 7 and 14 and results were compared between groups. No statistically significant differences were seen in percent changes in wound size at 7- and 14-day assessments of WH-1 cream and hydrocolloid dressing groups. A slightly higher proportion of patients in the WH-1 cream group (10 of 12; 90.9%) showed Wagner grade improvement compared to the hydrocolloid fiber dressing group but without statistical significance. For treating diabetic foot ulcers, P. amboinicus and C. asiatica cream is a safe alternative to hydrocolloid fiber dressing without significant difference in effectiveness.

Diabetic foot infections: current concept review

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a current concept review on the diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infections which are among the most serious and frequent complications encountered in patients with diabetes mellitus. A literature review on diabetic foot infections with emphasis on pathophysiology, identifiable risk factors, evaluation including physical examination, laboratory values, treatment strategies and assessing the severity of infection has been performed in detail. Diabetic foot infections are associated with high morbidity and risk factors for failure of treatment and classification systems are also described. Most diabetic foot infections begin with a wound and once an infection occurs, the risk of hospitalization and amputation increases dramatically. Early identification of infection and prompt treatment may optimize the patient's outcome and provide limb salvage.

Pyrosequencing reveals the complex polymicrobial nature of invasive pyogenic infections: microbial constituents of empyema, liver abscess, and intracerebral abscess

The polymicrobial nature of invasive pyogenic infections may be underestimated by routine culture practices, due to the fastidious nature of many organisms and the loss of viability during transport or from prior antibacterials. Pyrosequencing was performed on brain and liver abscesses and pleural fluid and compared to routine culture data. Forty-seven invasive pyogenic infection samples from 44 patients [6 intracerebral abscess (ICA), 21 pyogenic liver abscess (PLA), and 18 pleural fluid (PF) samples] were assayed. Pyrosequencing identified an etiologic microorganism in 100 % of samples versus 45 % by culture, p <0.01. Pyrosequencing was also more likely than traditional cultures to classify infections as polymicrobial, 91 % versus 17 %, p <0.001. The median number of genera identified by pyrosequencing compared to culture was 1 [interquartile range (IQR) 1-3] versus 0 (IQR 0-1) for ICA, 7 (IQR 1-15) versus 1 (IQR 0-1) for PLA, and 15 (IQR 9-19) versus 0 (IQR 0-1) for PF. Where organisms were cultured, they typically represented the numerically dominant species identified by pyrosequencing. Complex microbial communities are involved in invasive pyogenic infection of the lung, liver, and brain. Defining the polymicrobial nature of invasive pyogenic infections is the first step towards appreciating the clinical and diagnostic implications of these complex communities.

Distinguishing colonization from infection with Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot ulcers with miniaturized oligonucleotide arrays: a French multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To extend our previous work on evaluating the use of oligonucleotide arrays to discriminate colonization from infection owing to Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients admitted to 14 French diabetic foot departments for a DFU were screened for entry into the study. At admission, ulcers were classified based on clinical examination according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America system. Only patients with monomicrobial culture for S. aureus were included. In persons with an uninfected ulcer, a second wound bacterial specimen was obtained 1 month later. Using oligonucleotide arrays, S. aureus resistance and virulence genes were determined, and each isolate was affiliated to a clonal complex (CC).

RESULTS

S. aureus was initially isolated from 75 uninfected and 120 infected ulcers; 35 were methicillin resistant. A total of 44 (59%) strains from uninfected DFUs belonged to CC5/CC8 clones vs. 6 (5%) from infected DFUs (P < 0.001). During follow-up, 57 (76%) of uninfected DFUs healed or had a favorable outcome; the strain in 49 (86%) of them belonged to CC5/CC8. Conversely, 18 (24%) had a poor outcome but not a single strain belonged to CC5/CC8 clone. Moreover, lukDE was significantly associated with a favorable outcome of the wound.

CONCLUSIONS

As suggested by our previous study, the use of DNA arrays appears to be a promising technique that might help distinguishing uninfected from infected wounds, predicting ulcer outcome and then contributing to a more adequate use of antibiotics.

Neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers - evidence-to-practice

Foot ulcers and their attendant complications are disquietingly high in people with diabetes, a majority of whom have underlying neuropathy. This review examines the evidence base underpinning the prevention and management of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers in order to inform best clinical practice. Since it may be impractical to ask patients not to weight-bear at all, relief of pressure through the use of offloading casting devices remains the mainstay for management of neuropathic ulcers, whilst provision of appropriate footwear is essential in ulcer prevention. Simple non-surgical debridement and application of hydrogels are both effective in preparing the wound bed for healthy granulation and therefore enhancing healing. Initial empirical antibiotic therapy for infected ulcers should cover the most common bacterial flora. There is limited evidence supporting the use of adjunctive therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen and cytokines or growth factors. In selected cases, recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor has been shown to enhance healing; however, its widespread use cannot be advised due to the availability of more cost-effective approaches. While patient education may be beneficial, the evidence base remains thin and conflicting. In conclusion, best management of foot ulcers is achieved by what is taken out of the foot (pressure, callus, infection, and slough) rather than what is put on the foot (adjuvant treatment).

A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in the management of infection in the diabetic foot

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot expert panel on infection conducted a systematic review of the published evidence relating to treatment of foot infection in diabetes. Our search of the literature published prior to August 2010 identified 7517 articles, 29 of which fulfilled predefined criteria for detailed data extraction. Four additional eligible papers were identified from other sources. Of the total of 33 studies, 29 were randomized controlled trials, and four were cohort studies. Among 12 studies comparing different antibiotic regimens in the management of skin and soft-tissue infection, none reported a better response with any particular regimen. Of seven studies that compared antibiotic regimens in patients with infection involving both soft tissue and bone, one reported a better clinical outcome in those treated with cefoxitin compared with ampicillin/sulbactam, but the others reported no differences between treatment regimens. In two health economic analyses, there was a small saving using one regimen versus another. No published data support the superiority of any particular route of delivery of systemic antibiotics or clarify the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in either soft-tissue infection or osteomyelitis. In one non-randomized cohort study, the outcome of treatment of osteomyelitis was better when the antibiotic choice was based on culture of bone specimens as opposed to wound swabs, but this study was not randomized, and the results may have been affected by confounding factors. Results from two studies suggested that early surgical intervention was associated with a significant reduction in major amputation, but the methodological quality of both was low. In two studies, the use of superoxidized water was associated with a better outcome than soap or povidone iodine, but both had a high risk of bias. Studies using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor reported mixed results. There was no improvement in infection outcomes associated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. No benefit has been reported with any other intervention, and, overall, there are currently no trial data to justify the adoption of any particular therapeutic approach in diabetic patients with infection of either soft tissue or bone of the foot.

Expert opinion on the management of infections in the diabetic foot

This update of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot incorporates some information from a related review of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) and a systematic review of the management of infection of the diabetic foot. The pathophysiology of these infections is now well understood, and there is a validated system for classifying the severity of infections based on their clinical findings. Diagnosing osteomyelitis remains difficult, but several recent publications have clarified the role of clinical, laboratory and imaging tests. Magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as the most accurate means of diagnosing bone infection, but bone biopsy for culture and histopathology remains the criterion standard. Determining the organisms responsible for a diabetic foot infection via culture of appropriately collected tissue specimens enables clinicians to make optimal antibiotic choices based on culture and sensitivity results. In addition to culture-directed antibiotic therapy, most infections require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor debridement to major resection, amputation or revascularization. Clinicians must also provide proper wound care to ensure healing of the wound. Various adjunctive therapies may benefit some patients, but the data supporting them are weak. If properly treated, most diabetic foot infections can be cured. Providers practising in developing countries, and their patients, face especially challenging situations.

In vitro activity of TD-1792, a multivalent glycopeptide-cephalosporin antibiotic, against 377 strains of anaerobic bacteria and 34 strains of Corynebacterium species

TD-1792 is a multivalent glycopeptide-cephalosporin heterodimer antibiotic with potent activity against Gram-positive bacteria. We tested TD-1792 against 377 anaerobes and 34 strains of Corynebacterium species. Against nearly all Gram-positive strains, TD-1792 had an MIC₉₀ of 0.25 μg/ml and was typically 3 to 7 dilutions more active than vancomycin and daptomycin.

Ertapenem for treatment of osteomyelitis: a case series

BACKGROUND

Ertapenem is a once-daily broad spectrum carbapenem that is increasingly used to treat polymicrobial osteomyelitis due to diabetic foot and traumatic wound infections. However, limited data exists on ertapenem use for osteomyelitis. This study aimed to characterize outcomes and adverse effects with empiric use of ertapenem for osteomyelitis.

FINDINGS

A total of 112 patients presenting to Duke, Durham Regional or Durham VA Medical Centers with a suspected diagnosis of osteomyelitis and ertapenem use from 11/2001 to 8/2009 were screened, and 12 subjects met inclusion criteria for the study. Mean age was 60 ± 16 years, 68% were female, 75% were Caucasian, and the most common comorbidities included diabetes (58%), peripheral vascular disease (42%), and history of tobacco use (75%). Over half of the patients presented to a primary care clinic or emergency room greater than six months after the onset of clinical symptoms. Bone culture was obtained for diagnostic guidance in only two cases; and surgical intervention was pursued in three cases. Patients received a mean duration of 34.6 ± 7.8 days of therapy, and in three cases, subsequent suppressive oral antibiotics were given. Six (50%) patients met criteria for clinical success, defined as resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of infection such that discontinuation of antibiotics was deemed appropriate at end of ertapenem therapy, without recurrence at one year follow-up. No adverse drug effects were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series of mostly community-acquired, lower extremity osteomyelitis, bone biopsy was infrequent, and an average six-week course of empiric ertapenem was well-tolerated with curative rates of 50% at one year.

A randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin monotherapy versus intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate for complicated skin and skin structure infections

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of the RELIEF study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two sequential intravenous (iv)/oral regimens: moxifloxacin iv/oral versus piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) iv followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate (AMC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study had a prospective, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, multicentre design. Patients ≥18 years were prospectively stratified according to complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) subtype/diagnosis (major abscess, diabetic foot infection, wound infection or infected ischaemic ulcer), surgical intervention and severity of illness. Diagnoses and disease severity were based on predetermined criteria, documented by repeated photographs, and confirmed by an independent data review committee. Patients were randomized to receive either 400 mg of moxifloxacin iv once daily followed by 400 mg of moxifloxacin orally once daily or 4.0/0.5 g of TZP iv thrice daily followed by 875/125 mg of AMC orally twice daily for 7-21 days. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at test of cure (TOC) for the per-protocol (PP) population. Clinical efficacy was assessed by the data review committee based on repeated photographs and case descriptions. Clinical trials registry number: NCT 00402727.

RESULTS

A total of 813 patients were randomized. Clinical success rates at TOC were similar for moxifloxacin and TZP-AMC in the PP [320/361 (88.6%) versus 275/307 (89.6%), respectively; P = 0.758] and intent-to-treat (ITT) [350/426 (82.2%) versus 305/377 (80.9%), respectively; P = 0.632] populations. Thus, moxifloxacin was non-inferior to TZP-AMC. Bacteriological success rates were high in both treatment arms [moxifloxacin: 432/497 (86.9%) versus TZP-AMC: 370/429 (86.2%), microbiologically valid (MBV) population]. Moxifloxacin was non-inferior to TZP-AMC at TOC in both the MBV and the ITT populations. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily iv/oral moxifloxacin monotherapy was clinically and bacteriologically non-inferior to iv TZP thrice daily followed by oral AMC twice daily in patients with cSSSIs.

An overview of foot infections in diabetes

Patients with diabetes are prone to ulcerations of the lower extremities, frequently complicated by infection, and are then reliant upon their caregivers for preservation of their limbs without the dreaded outcome of amputation. The enormous tolls of foot infections in diabetes, in terms of both health-related quality of life issues and associated economic burdens, have only been fully realized within the last few decades, and it is anticipated that these burdens will only increase over time. Early and appropriate antibiotic treatment targeting the most likely etiologic pathogens is a cornerstone of management of foot infections in diabetes, but these decisions are now complicated by the emergence of resistant organisms, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative species. This review will examine the impact of foot infections in diabetes and the overall care and management of the diabetes patient with foot infection, including the potential value of emerging antibiotic therapies within the milieu of antibiotic resistance.

Epileptogenic potential of carbapenem agents: mechanism of action, seizure rates, and clinical considerations

Antimicrobials are the most frequently implicated class of drugs in drug-induced seizure, with β-lactams being the class of antimicrobials most often implicated. The seizure-inducing potential of the carbapenem subclass may be directly related to their β-lactam ring structure. Data on individual carbapenems and seizure activity are scarce. To evaluate the available evidence on the association between carbapenem agents and seizure activity, we conducted a literature search of the MEDLINE (1966-May 2010), EMBASE (1974-May 2010), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2010) databases. Reference citations from the retrieved articles were also reviewed. Mechanistically, seizure propensity of the β-lactams is related to their binding to γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. There are numerous reports of seizure activity associated with imipenem-cilastatin, with seizure rates ranging from 3-33%. For meropenem, doripenem, and ertapenem, the seizure rate for each agent is reported as less than 1%. However, as their use increases and expands into new patient populations, the rate of seizures with these agents may increase. High-dose therapy, especially in patients with renal dysfunction, preexisting central nervous system abnormalities, or a seizure history increases the likelihood of seizure activity. Although specific studies have not been conducted, data indicate that carbapenem-associated seizure is best managed with benzodiazepines, followed by other agents that enhance GABA transmission. Due to the drug interaction between carbapenems and valproic acid, resulting in clinically significant declines in valproic acid serum concentrations, the combination should be avoided whenever possible. Clinicians should be vigilant regarding the possibility of carbapenem-induced seizures when selecting and dosing antimicrobial therapy.

Meropenem in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections

Meropenem is a broad-spectrum carbapenem antibiotic with excellent activity against many pathogens associated with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). At least three studies have shown meropenem to have good clinical efficacy and to be well tolerated in the treatment of cSSTIs. Two open-label studies compared meropenem 500 mg every 8 hours (total evaluable n=146) with imipenem/cilastatin 500mg every 6 hours (n=147). Clinical efficacy rates in evaluable patients 7–14 days after end of treatment were similar, 92% and 100% in meropenem-treated groups versus 89% and 100% in groups receiving imipenem/cilastatin. An additional prospective, randomized, double-blind study evaluated meropenem 500mg every 8 hours (261 evaluable patients) versus imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg every 8 hours (287 patients). Clinical efficacy rates of meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin 7–28 days after end of treatment were 86.2% and 82.9%, respectively. Meropenem was well tolerated in all studies. Carbapenems are currently recommended as appropriate for initial treatment of certain cSSTIs such as those likely to involve mixed and/or multidrug-resistant pathogens. Meropenem is an effective and safe alternative for monotherapy when used for appropriate types of cSSTIs. Higher doses (ie, 1 g every 8 hours) should be considered for treatment of cSSTIs in higher-risk patients where Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a suspected or documented pathogen.

Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections in the elderly: A review

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) have become the second most common type of infection among persons residing in long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to review the latest information on SSTIs among the elderly, including age-related changes, challenges, and treatment strategies in the era of emerging bacterial resistance.

METHODS

Relevant information was identified through a search of MEDLINE (1970-April 2010), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2010), and Google Scholar using the terms skin and soft tissue infection, skin and skin structure infection, cellulitis, treatment guidelines, and elderly. Additional publications were found by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Trials published since 1970 were selected for this review if they prospectively evaluated mostly adults (≥18 years of age), included >50 patients, and reported diagnostic criteria as well as clinical outcomes in patients treated for simple or complicated SSTIs.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight of 664 identified studies were selected and included in this review. A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials that were conducted exclusively in the elderly. Information on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly was based solely on clinical studies that were conducted in adults in general. As recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2008 update, SSTIs should be suspected in elderly patients who have skin lesions and present with a decline in functional status, with or without fever. Patients who present with symptoms of systemic toxicity should be hospitalized for further evaluation. Current challenges in the management of SSTIs include the rapid emergence of community-acquired, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA), the emergence of macrolide-resistant streptococci within the past decade, and the lack of a reliable algorithm to differentiate potentially life-threatening SSTIs that require aggressive interventions and prompt hospitalization from those that can be managed in an outpatient setting. S aureus was the most common cause of SSTIs, being isolated in 42.8% (5015/11,723) of wounds, followed by streptococci. Common SSTIs in the elderly such as shingles, diabetic foot infections, infected pressure ulcers, and scabies, and their treatment were also discussed. Based on reviews of published trials, treatment of simple SSTIs generally consisted of administration of agents with activity against S aureus and Streptococcus species such as a penicillinase-resistant β-lactam, a first-generation cephalosporin, or clindamycin. Broadening of the antimicrobial spectrum to include gram-negative and anaerobic organisms should be implemented for complicated SSTIs such as diabetic foot infections and infected pressure ulcers. Local rates of MRSA, CA-MRSA, and macrolide-resistant streptococci should be considered when selecting empiric therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly; therefore, it is recommended to follow treatment based on the current IDSA guidelines. More research and publications are needed to establish proper selection of antimicrobial agents, treatment strategies, and duration of therapy of SSTIs in the elderly population.

[Empirical antibiotic therapy of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in dermatological practice]

Erysipelas is an acute bacterial infection of the skin predominantly caused by Streptococcus pyogenes. According to the international classification complicated erysipelas belongs to the complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Complicated infections are defined as severe skin involvement or when the infection occurs in compromised hosts. These infections frequently involve Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobic bacteria.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the empirical antibiotic therapy for the patients who were admitted to the Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University of Szeged.

METHODS

The empirical therapy was started according to a previously determined protocol. The data of 158 patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections were analyzed and the microbiology culture specimens and the isolates were also examined.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The results show that penicillin is the first choice for the treatment of erysipelas. However, the complicated skin and soft tissue infections require broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Seminar Review: A Review of the Basis of Surgical Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections

Infection is an extremely challenging complication of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Surgery as part of a multidisciplinary approach is key in the management of many types of diabetic foot infections (DFIs). Unfortunately, the surgical treatment of DFIs is based more on clinical judgment and less on structured evidence, which leaves unresolved doubts. The clinical presentation of DFIs is varied. This review examines the basis of nonvascular surgical treatment of DFIs, emphasizing the importance of the anatomic concepts of the foot, the variety of its clinical presentations, and the concepts of timing surgery. Recent evidence and case reports based on the author’s experience are presented in 2 parts. The first part examines clinical presentation of infections, whereas the second part deals with imaging, foot anatomy, and some case reports.

[Management of soft tissue infections in the region of the extremities and the trunk]

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) are amongst the most common bacterial infections in humans. SSTI have a broad range of aetiology, clinical manifestation and severity. The outcome may be spontaneous resolution or on the other end sepsis with lethal outcome. Useful classifications are those which differentiate SSTI according to urgency of surgical intervention. The definitive diagnosis should be made by the clinical picture of the lesion and the condition of the patient. The key to successful treatment of many severe necrotizing soft tissue infections is based on early detection and prompt surgical debridement. This procedure has to be followed by an optimal wound management. From the early beginning of treatment an adequately calculated antibiotic treatment is mandatory. At the end of the treatment the wound has to be closed by an aesthetic scar with high mechanical load capacity.

New insights in diabetic foot infection

Foot ulcers are common in diabetic patients, have a cumulative lifetime incidence rate as high as 25% and frequently become infected. The spread of infection to soft tissue and bone is a major causal factor for lower-limb amputation. For this reason, early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are essential, including treatment which is both local (of the foot) and systemic (metabolic), and this requires coordination by a multidisciplinary team. Optimal treatment also often involves extensive surgical debridement and management of the wound base, effective antibiotic therapy, consideration for revascularization and correction of metabolic abnormalities such as hyperglycemia. This article focuses on diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infections in the light of recently published data in order to help clinicians in identification, assessment and antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections.

Complicated skin, skin structure and soft tissue infections - are we threatened by multi-resistant pathogens?

Tissue infections or skin, skin structure, and deep seated soft tissue infections are general terms for infections of the entire skin layer including the subcutaneous and muscle tissue layers and their respective fascia structures. Infections of the different mediastinal fascias (mediastinitis) and retroperitoneal fascia infections also belong to this category. Due to the variability of their clinical presentation, skin and soft tissue infections can be classified according to different features. The following aspects can be used for classification:

- anatomical structures

- pathogens

- necessity for urgent treatment

- extent of infection

The incidence of skin and soft tissue infections in which MRSA (methicillin-resistent Staphylococcus aureus) is involved has been steadily increasing over the past 15 years. These wounds should be treated according to the same open treatment principles as other infected wounds. Since these infections are often superficial contaminations, antibiotic therapy is not indicated. If systemic infection occurs in form of MRSA sepsis, antibiotic therapy is indicated.

Several recent reports identified MRSA as the leading pathogen in SSTIs. It also causes 20% to 50% of diabetes-associated foot infections in several countries and is associated with worse outcomes than other pathogens.