Stopping antibiotics after surgical amputation in diabetic foot and ankle infections-A daily practice cohort

Staphylococcus aureus Is the Predominant Pathogen in Hospitalised Patients with Diabetes-Related Foot Infections: An Australian Perspective

Diabetes prevalence continues to increase worldwide, which has led to a rising incidence of diabetes-related foot infections (DFIs). There is significant local variation in the microbiology of DFIs, and Pseudomonas spp. is suggested to be more prevalent in subtropical climates. The aim of this study was to investigate the local microbiological findings in patients admitted to the hospital with DFIs. This retrospective study analysed data from all adult patients diagnosed with diabetes and admitted to the hospital for the treatment of a DFI between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Both superficial wound swabs and tissue cultures were included. The Infectious Diseases Society of America classification system was used to categorise the severity of the DFI. Patient characteristics and demographics were analysed using descriptive statistics. One hundred fifty-one episodes of care were included. Most of the DFIs were classified as moderate infections 101/151 (67%). The most commonly isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus aureus (33%) followed by normal skin flora (11%) and β-haemolytic streptococci (7%). P. aeruginosa was isolated more commonly in those with chronic DFIs (10%) compared to those with acute DFIs (2%). Despite the frequent identification of S. aureus, 83% of patients received an antipseudomonal antibiotic. The introduction of multidisciplinary DFI rounds should be considered.

Controversial Issues Regarding Positive Bone Margins in Surgery for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Pilot Study

Obtaining clean margins in patients who undergo surgical treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is recommended. We hypothesize that the rate of recurrence of the infection is not associated with positive margins, even when using a short-term duration of postoperative antibiotic treatment. We conducted a retrospective pilot study of patients who underwent surgery for DFO confirmed by histopathological analysis of the resected bone from August 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020. Bone samples were taken from the proximal margins to be studied by microbiology and histopathology. Twenty-five (89.3%) patients underwent conservative surgery, and 3 (10.7%) patients underwent a minor amputation. After surgery, the antibiotics were stopped in 19 (67.9%) patients and continued in 9 (32.1%) patients for a median period of 4 days. The microbiology of the bone margins was positive in 20 (71.4%) cases, but the histopathology of the bone margins was positive in just 7 (25%) cases. Recurrence of the infection was detected in 3 (10.7%) patients. Seventeen (68%) patients with microbiological-positive margins did not have a recurrence of infection, while 3 (100%) patients had a recurrence of infection (P = .53). Six (24%) patients among those with histopathological-positive margins did not have a recurrence of infection, and1 (33.3%) patient had a recurrence of infection (P = 1). The recurrence of infection was low and always detected in soft tissues, including the cases with a histopathological-positive bone margin. Postoperative antibiotics were administered for a short period of time and not based on the analysis of bone margins.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Clinical practice recommendations for infectious disease management of diabetic foot infection (DFI) - 2023 SPILF

In march 2020, the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) published an update of the 2015 guidelines on the diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infection (DFI). While we (the French ID society, SPILF) endorsed some of these recommendations, we wanted to update our own 2006 guidelines and specifically provide informative elements on modalities of microbiological diagnosis and antibiotic treatment (especially first- and second-line regiments, oral switch and duration). The recommendations put forward in the present guidelines are addressed to healthcare professionals managing patients with DFI and more specifically focused on infectious disease management of this type of infection, which clearly needs a multidisciplinary approach. Staging of the severity of the infection is mandatory using the classification drawn up by the IWGDF. Microbiological samples should be taken only in the event of clinical signs suggesting infection in accordance with a strict preliminarily established protocol. Empirical antibiotic therapy should be chosen according to the IWGDF grade of infection and duration of the wound, but must always cover methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Early reevaluation of the patient is a fundamental step, and duration of antibiotic therapy can be shortened in many situations. When osteomyelitis is suspected, standard foot radiograph is the first-line imagery examination and a bone biopsy should be performed for microbiological documentation. Histological analysis of the bone sample is no longer recommended. High dosages of antibiotics are recommended in cases of confirmed osteomyelitis.

Current knowledge of morbidities and direct costs related to diabetic foot disorders: a literature review

Diabetes is a chronic disease associated with numerous complications including diabetic foot disorders, which are associated with significant morbidity and mortality as well as high costs. The costs associated with diabetic foot disorders comprise those linked to care (direct) and loss of productivity and poor quality of life (indirect). Due to the constant increase in diabetes prevalence, it is expected that diabetic foot disorder will require more resources, both in terms of caregivers and economically. We reviewed findings on management, morbidity, mortality, and costs related to diabetic foot disorder.

Comparative Efficacy of Conservative Surgery vs Minor Amputation for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical intervention for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). Conservative surgery-amputation-free resection of infected bone and soft tissues-is gaining traction as an alternative to minor amputation. Our primary objective was to explore the comparative effectiveness of conservative surgery and minor amputations in clinical failure risk 1 year after index intervention. We also aimed to explore microbiological recurrence at 1 year, and revision surgery risk over a 10-year study period.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center chart review of DFO patients undergoing either conservative surgery or minor amputation. We used multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates to explore the effect of surgical intervention on clinical failure (recurrent diabetic foot infection at surgical site within 1 year after index operation), microbiological recurrence at 1 year, and revision surgery risk over a 10-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

651 patients were included (conservative surgery, n = 121; minor amputation, n = 530). Clinical failure occurred in 34 (28%) patients in the conservative surgery group, and in 111 (21%) of the minor amputation group at 1 year (P = .09). After controlling for potential confounders, we found no association between conservative surgery and clinical failure at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.1). We found no between-group differences in microbiological recurrence at 1 year (conservative surgery: 8 [6.6%]; minor amputation: 33 [6.2%]; P = .25; adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5-2.6). Over the 10-year period, the conservative group underwent significantly more revision surgeries (conservative surgery: 85 [70.2%]; minor amputation: 252 [47.5%]; P < .01; adjusted HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8).

CONCLUSION

We found that with comorbidity-based patient selection, conservative surgery in the treatment of DFO was associated with the same rates of clinical failure and microbiological recurrence at 1 year, but with significantly more revision surgeries during follow-up, compared with minor amputations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative effectiveness study.

Residual osteomyelitis at the resection margin after conservative surgery is not associated with the recurrence of diabetic foot infection and may successfully be treated without postoperative antibiotic therapy

AIMS

We hypothesize that microbiology- and pathology-confirmed positive bone margins after the resection of diabetes-related foot osteomyelitis are associated with worse outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study consisting of a cohort of 93 patients with diabetes-related foot osteomyelitis (histopathology confirmed) who underwent bone resection and where an additional bone biopsy was taken at the resection margin. The primary outcome was the recurrence of the infection.

RESULTS

Pathology-confirmed positive margins were detected in 62 cases (66.7%), microbiology-confirmed positive margins were detected in 75 cases (80.6%) and recurrence was detected in 19 patients (20.4%). Chi-squared test failed to show the presence of an association between the recurrence of the infection with pathology-confirmed positive margins (p = 0.82), with microbiology-confirmed positive margins, (p = 0.34) and with the use of postoperative antibiotics (p = 0.70). Healing in patients with pathology-confirmed positive margins was achieved in a median of 12 weeks (95% CI 9.2-18) and those with pathology-confirmed negative margins in 14.9 weeks (95% CI 10.2-21.9), Log-rank test, p = 0.74. Thirty-four patients out of 61 available for follow-up (55.7%) with pathology-confirmed positive margins were treated without postoperative antibiotics. In that group, Chi-squared test failed to show the presence of an association between the recurrence of the infection with the use of postoperative antibiotics (p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

A positive margin was neither associated with the recurrence of the infection nor with the time to healing. More than half of patients with pathology-confirmed positive margins were treated without postoperative antibiotics and this approach was not associated with the recurrence of the infection.

Detection, management, and prevention of diabetes-related foot disease in the Australian context

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a widely feared complication among people who live with diabetes. In Australia and globally, rates of disability, cardio-vascular disease, lower extremity amputation, and mortality are significantly increased in patients with DFD. In order to understand and prevent these outcomes, we analyse the common pathogenetic processes of neuropathy, arterial disease, and infection. The review then summarises important management considerations through the interdisciplinary lens. Using Australian and international guidelines, we offer a stepwise, evidence-based practical approach to the care of patients with DFD.

Surgery without postoperative antibiotic treatment in diabetic foot osteomyelitis is not associated with recurrence or limb loss

Not using antibiotics after surgical treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis was not associated with failure of the surgery, recurrences, or limb loss. Antibiotics were given in doubtful complicated cases such as severe infections, cases with necrosis, foul-smelling lesions and patients requiring revascularization.

Injectable hydrogel as a carrier of vancomycin and a cathelicidin-derived peptide for osteomyelitis treatment

A local drug delivery system that attempts to find a suitable balance between antimicrobial and regenerative actions was developed for osteomyelitis treatment (OM). This system combines the angiogenic and immunomodulatory peptide LLKKK18 (LL18) and vancomycin hydrochloride (VH), loaded into an injectable oxidized dextrin (ODEX)-based hydrogel (HG). In vitro cytotoxicity was analyzed in MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts and erythrocytes. The kinetics of LL18 release was studied. Antimicrobial activity was assessed in vitro against a clinical Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain. A rat model of acute OM was developed by direct inoculation into a tibia defect, concomitantly with the implantation of the drug-loaded HG. The local bioburden was quantified and damage in surrounding tissues was examined histologically. In vitro, ODEX-based HG displayed a safe hemolytic profile. Half of LL18 (53%) is released during the swelling phase at physiological pH, then being gradually released until complete HG degradation. LL18-loaded HG at 300 μM was the most effective peptide formulation in decreasing in vivo infection among concentrations ranging from 86 to 429 μM. The histopathological scores observed in vivo varied with the LL18 concentration in a dose-dependent manner. VH at 28 mM completely eradicated bacteria, although with substantial tissue injury. We have found that sub-millimolar doses of VH combined with LL18 at 300 μM may suffice to eradicate the infection, with reduced tissue damage. We propose an easy-to-handle, shape-fitting HG formulation with the potential to treat MRSA-infected bone with low VH doses associated with LL18.

Pseudomonal Diabetic Foot Infections: Vive la Différence?

Objective

To assess the outcomes of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Patients and Methods

From April 24, 2013 to July 31, 2016, we analyzed data from patients prospectively enrolled in our clinical pathway of DFIs, comparing those with infection due to Pseudomonas with those without infection due to Pseudomonas.

Results

Overall, we assessed 1018 cases of DFIs: 392 with osteomyelitis and 626 with only soft tissue infections. The prevalence of P aeruginosa in deep wound cultures was 10% (104/1018); of the 1018 cultures, 22 were monomicrobial, 82 were polymicrobial, and 46 were with osteomyelitis. Overall, the patients were treated with a median of 1 surgical debridement and a total of 20 days of antibiotic therapy. In a comparison of crude groups, the proportion of clinical failures was significantly higher with Pseudomonas than with other pathogens (36/104 [35%] vs 218/914 [24%], respectively; P=.02). A multivariate analysis showed that pseudomonal DFIs did not recur more often than nonpseudomonal DFIs (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.7). Among the 104 cases of pseudomonal DFIs, there was no association between failure of treatment and the total duration of antibiotic therapy, duration of intravenous therapy, duration of combined antibiotic therapy with more than 1 agent, or duration of oral (fluoroquinolone) therapy. Among 15 cases of pseudomonal recurrence, 2 (13%) developed resistance to the antibiotic agent used for the index episode.

Conclusion

For DFIs caused by P aeruginosa, other than choosing an antibiotic agent that is active against the organism, it does not appear necessary to treat with a different therapeutic regimen compared with the treatment of nonpseudomonal DFIs. There is no difference!

The impact of the length of total and intravenous systemic antibiotic therapy for the remission of diabetic foot infections

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the impact of the total length of systemic antibiotic therapy (ABT) and its initial intravenous (IV) part on clinical failure (CF) and microbiological failure (MF) in diabetic foot infections (DFIs).

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective, unmatched case-control study, we included DFI episodes treated with a combined surgical-antibiotic approach.

RESULTS

We included 721 DFI episodes, 537 with osteomyelitis (DFO). CF occurred in 191 (26.5%) and MF in 42 (5.8%) episodes. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that a short ABT of 8-21 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.7) was inversely associated with CF. This was also applicable for IV ABT with relatively short durations of 2-7 days (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3-0.8) or 8-14 days (HR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4-0.9). We failed to detect a minimal threshold of total or IV ABT predictive for CF or MF.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with total ABT of more than 84 days and IV therapy of more than 14 days, shorter total and IV ABT yielded no enhanced risk of CF or MF. Considering the "bias by indication" that is inherent to retrospective DFI studies, the best study design concerning the duration of ABT would be a stratified, prospective randomized trial, which is currently under way in our medical center.

Short and oral antimicrobial therapy for diabetic foot infection: a narrative review of current knowledge

Diabetic foot infection is a frequent complication in long-standing diabetes mellitus. For antimicrobial therapy of this infection, both the optimal duration and the route of administration are often based more on expert opinion than on published evidence. We reviewed the scientific literature, specifically seeking prospective trials, and aimed at addressing two clinical issues: (1) shortening the currently recommended antibiotic duration and (2) using oral (rather than parenteral) therapy, especially after the patient has undergone debridement and revascularization. We also reviewed some older key articles that are critical to our understanding of the treatment of these infections, particularly with respect to diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Our conclusion is that the maximum duration of antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis should be no more than to 4-6 weeks and might even be shorter in selected cases. In the future, in addition to conducting randomized trials and propagating national and international guidance, we should also explore innovative strategies, such as intraosseous antibiotic agents and bacteriophages.

Association Between Foot Surgery Type and Subsequent Healing in Veterans With Moderate-to-Severe Diabetic Foot Infections

Background

Diabetic foot infections are a common precursor to lower extremity amputations. The treatment of diabetic foot infections involves both medical and surgical management, of which limb-sparing surgeries are increasingly preferred over amputations at or above the ankle to preserve mobility and quality of life. The outcomes following these limb-sparing surgeries are not well described.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 90 Veterans with moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infections between 2017 and 2019 from the Veterans Affairs Maryland Health Care System. The exposure was foot surgery with bone resection (ie, toe amputation, metatarsal resection, transmetatarsal amputation) vs debridement alone. The outcome was healing within 1 year. We used log-binomial regression to assess the association between foot surgery type and healing, stratify by infection location, and evaluate potential confounding variables.

Results

The cumulative incidence of healing after foot surgery with bone resection was greater than that following debridement (risk ratio [RR], 1.80 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.17–2.77]). This association was modified by infection location and greater for toe infections (RR, 4.52 [95% CI, 1.30–15.7]) than other foot infections (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, .69–2.02]). We found no evidence of confounding by comorbidities or infection severity.

Conclusions

For patients with toe infections, foot surgery with bone resection was associated with better healing than debridement alone. The multiple specialties caring for patients with diabetic foot infections need a stronger common knowledge base—from studies like this and future studies—to better counsel patients about their treatment and prognosis.

Treatment of hindfoot and ankle infections with Ilizarov external fixator or spacer, followed by secondary arthrodesis

An established treatment strategy in surgical site infection after hindfoot and ankle surgery is a two-stage procedure with debridement and placement of a cement spacer, followed by antibiotic treatment and secondary arthrodesis. However, there is little evidence to favor this treatment over a one-stage procedure with debridement, followed by primary arthrodesis with an Ilizarov external fixator and antibiotic treatment. We compared the infection control and clinical and radiological outcome of a two-stage and a one-stage procedure. In this study, 7 patients with a two-stage revision and 11 patients with a one-stage revision between 2005 and 2015 were included. The primary outcome was infection control (absence of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society PJI criteria) 2 years after the ankle or hindfoot arthrodesis. Secondary outcome measures were the AOFAS hindfoot score and radiological consolidation rate. Infection control was 85% (6 out of 7 patients) in the two-stage group and 81% (9 out of 11 patients) in the one-stage group (p = 1.0). One patient (14%) of the two-stage and two patients (18%) in the one-stage group needed below-knee amputation. In the two-stage group, the mean postoperative AOFAS score was 74.8 (SD: ±11.3) versus 71.7 (SD: ±17.8) in the one-stage group. Radiological consolidation could be achieved in 71% in the spacer group (n = 5) and in 72% in the Ilizarov external fixator group (n = 9). Infection control, AOFAS score, and radiologic consolidation of hindfoot and ankle arthrodesis were comparable in both groups of patients with complicated postsurgical hindfoot or ankle infections.

Treating Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Practical State-of-the-Art Update

Background and Objectives: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) can be difficult to treat and securing optimal clinical outcomes requires a multidisciplinary approach involving a wide variety of medical, surgical and other health care professionals, as well as the patient. Results of studies conducted in the past few years have allowed experts to formulate guidelines that can improve clinical outcomes. Material and Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature on treat- ment of DFO, with an emphasis on studies published in the last two years, especially regarding antimicrobial therapies and surgical approached to treatment of DFO, supplemented by our own extensive clinical and research experience in this field. Results: Major amputations were once com- mon for DFO but, with improved diagnostic and surgical techniques, "conservative" surgery (foot- sparing, resecting only the infected and necrotic bone) is becoming commonplace, especially for forefoot infections. Traditional antibiotic therapy, which has been administered predominantly in- travenously and frequently for several months, can often be replaced by appropriately selected oral antibiotic regimens following only a brief (or even no) parenteral therapy, and given for no more than 6 weeks. Based on ongoing studies, the recommended duration of treatment may soon be even shorter, especially for cases in which a substantial portion of the infected bone has been resected. Using the results of cultures (preferably of bone specimens) and antimicrobial stewardship princi- ples allows clinicians to select evidence-based antibiotic regimens, often of a limited pathogen spec- trum. Intra-osseous antimicrobial and surgical approaches to treatment are also evolving in light of ongoing research. Conclusions: In this narrative, evidenced-based review, taking consideration of principles of antimicrobial stewardship and good surgical practice, we have highlighted the recent literature and offered practical, state-of-the-art advice on the antibiotic and surgical management of DFO.

How good are clinicians in predicting the presence of Pseudomonas spp. in diabetic foot infections? A prospective clinical evaluation

Introduction

The most frequently prescribed empirical antibiotic agents for mild and moderate diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are amino-penicillins and second-generation cephalosporins that do not cover Pseudomonas spp. Many clinicians believe they can predict the involvement of Pseudomonas in a DFI by visual and/or olfactory clues, but no data support this assertion.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, we separately asked 13 experienced (median 11 years) healthcare workers whether they thought the Pseudomonas spp. would be implicated in the DFI. Their predictions were compared with the results of cultures of deep/intraoperative specimens and/or the clinical remission of DFI achieved with antibiotic agents that did not cover Pseudomonas.

Results

Among 221 DFI episodes in 88 individual patients, intraoperative tissue cultures grew Pseudomonas in 22 cases (10%, including six bone samples). The presence of Pseudomonas was correctly predicted with a sensitivity of 0.32, specificity of 0.84, positive predictive value of 0.18 and negative predictive value 0.92. Despite two feedbacks of the interim results and a 2-year period, the clinicians' predictive performance did not improve.

Conclusion

The combined visual and olfactory performance of experienced clinicians in predicting the presence of Pseudomonas in a DFI was moderate, with better specificity than sensitivity, and did not improve over time. Further investigations are needed to determine whether clinicians should use a negative prediction of the presence of Pseudomonas in a DFI, especially in settings with a high prevalence of pseudomonal DFIs.

Three versus six weeks of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis: A prospective, randomized, non-inferiority pilot trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) who underwent surgical debridement, we investigated whether a short (3 weeks), compared with a long (6 weeks) duration of systemic antibiotic treatment is associated with non-inferior results for clinical remission and adverse events (AE).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, pilot trial, we randomized (allocation 1:1), patients with DFO after surgical debridement to either a 3-week or a 6-week course of antibiotic therapy. The minimal duration of follow-up after end of therapy was two months. We compared outcomes using Cox regression and non-inferiority analyses (25% margin, power 80%).

RESULTS

Among 93 enrolled patients (18% females; median age 65 years), 44 were randomized to the 3-week arm and 49 to the 6-week arm. The median number of surgical debridement was 1 (range, 0-2 interventions). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, remission occurred in 37 (84%) of the patients in the 3-week arm compared to 36 (73%) in the 6-week arm (p=0.21). The number of AE was similar in the two study arms (17/44 vs. 16/49; p=0.51), as were the remission incidences in the per-protocol (PP) population (33/39 vs. 32/43; p=0.26). In multivariate analysis, treatment with the shorter antibiotic course was not significantly associated with remission (for the ITT population, hazard ratio 1.1, 95%CI 0.6-1.7; for the PP population hazard ratio 0.8, 95%CI 0.5-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized, controlled pilot trial, a post-debridement systemic antibiotic therapy course for DFO of 3-weeks gave similar (and statistically non-inferior) incidences of remission and AE to a course of 6 weeks.

Management of diabetic foot infections in the light of recent literature and new international guidelines

Introduction: In May 2019 the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) launched their quadrennially updated guidelines on the management of diabetic foot infections (DFIs). Concomitantly, the number of new publications regarding DFI increased.Areas covered: The IWGDF committee developed and addressed key questions and produced evidence-based recommendations related to diagnosing and treating DFIs. This narrative review provides an overview of this new guideline and also of other recently published literature in the field of DFIs.Expert opinion: The 2019 IWGDF guidelines provide an authoritative, international, evidence-based approach to diagnosing and treating DFIs. The 27 recommendations are supported by systematic reviews of both diagnosis and interventions. Our review of this guideline, along with other recent publications in the field, allows us to offer state-of-the-art guidance for caring for these difficult infections. As the evidence base for management of DFIs remains suboptimal, we need further research to improve the management of DFIs.

Optimization of the antibiotic management of diabetic foot infections: protocol for two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Few studies have addressed the appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFI) with or without amputation. We will perform two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to reduce the antibiotic use and associated adverse events in DFI.

METHODS

We hypothesize that shorter durations of postdebridement systemic antibiotic therapy are noninferior (10% margin, 80% power, alpha 5%) to existing (long) durations and we will perform two unblinded RCTs with a total of 400 DFI episodes (randomization 1:1) from 2019 to 2022. The primary outcome for both RCTs is remission of infection after a minimal follow-up of 2 months. The secondary outcomes for both RCTs are the incidence of adverse events and the overall treatment costs. The first RCT will allocate the total therapeutic amputations in two arms of 50 patients each: 1 versus 3 weeks of antibiotic therapy for residual osteomyelitis (positive microbiological samples of the residual bone stump); or 1 versus 4 days for remaining soft tissue infection. The second RCT will randomize the conservative approach (only surgical debridement without in toto amputation) in two arms with 50 patients each: 10 versus 20 days of antibiotic therapy for soft tissue infections; and 3 versus 6 weeks for osteomyelitis. All participants will have professional wound debridement, adequate off-loading, angiology evaluation, and a concomitant surgical, re-educational, podiatric, internist and infectiology care. During the surgeries, we will collect tissues for BioBanking and future laboratory studies.

DISCUSSION

Both parallel RCTs will respond to frequent questions regarding the duration of antibiotic use in the both major subsets of DFIs, to ensure the quality of care, and to avoid unnecessary excesses in terms of surgery and antibiotic use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04081792. Registered on 4 September 2019.