Management of diabetic foot infections in an era of increasing microbial resistance

Advances in pharmacotherapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis

Introduction: The diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually clinical. Its severity is related to the location and depth of the lesion, and the presence of necrosis or gangrene. The aetiology of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually polymicrobial, and DFO is often associated with chronic or recurring ulceration.Areas covered: We built on the  International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on the management of diabetic foot infection, providing an outline of the current and new concepts in pharmacotherapy in DFO. We assess future strategies in both medical, surgical and combination management of DFO.Expert opinion: Surgical removal of infected bone is considered as the standard treatment, but a medical approach of certain selected situations has now proven efficacy in selected patients. The combination of new modalities in local antibiotic delivery may provide better long-term solutions and more lasting remission and avoid the disadvantages of prolonged systemic antibiotics.

An evidence based narrative review on treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis

OBJECTIVE

The diagnosis of diabetic food infection is usually clinical, and its severity is related to location and depth of the lesion, and the presence of necrosis or gangrene. Osteomyelitis of the foot and ankle can be extremely debilitating, and, in the preantibiotic era acute staphylococcal osteomyelitis carried a mortality rate of 50%. The microbiology of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually polymicrobial. Indeed, gram-negative and gram-positive bacilli can be identified using molecular techniques applied to bone biopsies compared to conventional techniques. The aim of the present study is to report a complete overview regarding medical and surgical management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) in combination or alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a search in PubMed and Scopus electronic databases (up to January 2019) of articles assessing the epidemiology, diagnostic strategy and pharmacological treatment of diabetic foot infection. In the search strategy, we used various combinations of the following key terms: infection, orthopaedic, diabetic foot, management, DFO.

RESULTS

This article discusses the definition, epidemiology, microbiological assessment, clinical evaluation, pharmacological and surgical management and a comparison between them, of DFO. After the initial literature search and removal of duplicate records, a total of 756 potentially relevant citations were identified. After a further screening and according to the inclusion criteria, a total of 65 articles were included in the present review.

CONCLUSION

The association of antibiotic and surgical therapy seems to be more effective compared to each one alone. The lack of comparison studies and randomized controlled trials makes it difficult to give information about the efficacy of the different management therapies.

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.

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.

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.

Changing microbiological profile of pathogenic bacteria in diabetic foot infections: time for a rethink on which empirical therapy to choose?

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We studied the bacterial aetiology and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of diabetic foot ulcers in India.

METHODS

Records of 447 hospitalised patients between 1991 and 2008 were retrospectively analysed between two time periods (before and after 1999) to compare bacterial aetiology and antimicrobial sensitivity patterns. The first three consecutive cultures from the same wound during treatment were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 1,632 cultures, 66% were polymicrobial, 23% monomicrobial and 11% sterile. In the monomicrobial group, 14% (n = 228) of cultures were Gram-negative, whereas 9% (n = 147) were Gram-positive. The most common pathogens in the first culture were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (20.1%), Staphylococcus aureus (17.2%) and Escherichia coli (16.3%). Results for the third cultures showed persistence of P. aeruginosa (15.3%) and E. coli (14.2%). Gram-negative isolates dominated over Gram-positive ones (25.3% vs 15.1%, p < 0.05). Antibiotic sensitivity patterns before and after 1999 were: piperacillin-tazobactam 74% vs 66% (p < 0.005), imipenem 77% vs 85% (NS), cefoperazone-sulbactam 47% vs 44% (p < 0.005), amikacin 62% vs 78% (NS), ceftriaxone 41% vs 36% (p < 0.005), amoxicillin-clavulanate 51% vs 43% (p < 0.05) and clindamycin 43% vs 36% (p < 0.005), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Unlike in the West, in India Gram-negative bacteria were found to have always been dominant in the wounds of patients with diabetic foot infections. Infection with polymicrobial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli is common. The policy of empirical antimicrobial therapy at tertiary care needs to be changed.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections

Diabetic foot ulcers are often complicated by infection. Among pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus predominates. The prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in infected foot ulcers is 15-30% and there is an alarming trend for increase in many countries. There are also data that recognize new strains of MRSA that are resistant to vancomycin. The risk for MRSA isolation increases in the presence of osteomyelitis, nasal carriage of MRSA, prior use of antibacterials or hospitalization, larger ulcer size and longer duration of the ulcer. The need for amputation and surgical debridement increases in patients infected with MRSA. Infections of mild or moderate severity caused by community-acquired MRSA can be treated with cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole), doxycycline or clindamycin when susceptibility results are available, while severe community-acquired or hospital-acquired MRSA infections should be managed with glycopeptides, linezolide or daptomycin. Dalbavancin, tigecycline and ceftobiprole are newer promising antimicrobial agents active against MRSA that may also have a role in the treatment of foot infections if more data on their efficacy and safety become available.

Antibiotic optimization in the difficult-to-treat patient with complicated intra-abdominal or complicated skin and skin structure infections: focus on tigecycline

Complicated intra-abdominal and skin and skin structure infections are widely varied in presentation. These infections very often lead to an increase in length of hospital stay, with a resulting increase in costs and mortality. In addition, these infections may be caused by a wide variety of bacteria and are often polymicrobial with the possibility of the presence of antimicrobial-resistant strains, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum β-lactamase strains (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing strains. In combination with patients’ immunosuppression or comorbidities, the treatment and management options for initial therapy success are few. Tigecycline, a new glycylcyline antimicrobial from the tetracycline drug class, represents a viable option for the successful treatment of these infections. It has been shown to have activity against a wide variety of bacteria, including the antimicrobial-resistant strains. As with all tetracycline drugs, it is not recommended for pregnant or nursing women. The potential side effects are those typical of tetracycline drugs: nausea, vomiting, and headaches. Drug–drug interactions are not expected, and renal function monitoring is not necessary.

Treatment of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Surgical Critique

Osteomyelitis is one of the most frequent infections of the diabetic foot accounting for 10-15% of mild infections and almost 50% of severe infections. The definitive diagnosis of foot osteomyelitis requires obtaining bone samples for microbiological and histopathological studies. The treatment of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients continues to be debated. Until recently, most experts considered that the standard treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis should be the surgical removal of infected bone. Recent data suggest that antibiotic treatment can achieve an apparent remission of osteomyelitis though it is difficult to identify patients for this approach. One of the main arguments used to justify the solely antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis is the alteration of foot biomechanics produced as a consequence of surgery. Conservative surgery combined with antibiotics is an attractive option in treating diabetic foot osteomyelitis because it may reduce the changes in the biomechanics of the foot and minimize the duration of antibiotic therapy. It is currently accepted that the combination of antibiotics with surgical removal of the infected bone may cure the majority of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Recent literature emphasizes the role of antibiotics in the management of foot infections while little effort is dedicated to reviewing the surgical treatment of this challenging diabetic complication, apart from amputation. More research, including studies of adjunctive therapies in cases of bone infection in the feet of diabetic patients is required.