Efficacy and Safety of Bioactive Glass S53P4 as a Treatment for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023)

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

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.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023)

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Polysaccharide-bioceramic composites for bone tissue engineering: A review

Limitations associated with conventional bone substitutes such as autografts, increasing demand for bone grafts, and growing elderly population worldwide necessitate development of unique materials as bone graft substitutes. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) would ensure therapy advancement, efficiency, and cost-effective treatment modalities of bone defects. One way of engineering bone tissue scaffolds by mimicking natural bone tissue composed of organic and inorganic phases is to utilize polysaccharide-bioceramic hybrid composites. Polysaccharides are abundant in nature, and present in human body. Biominerals, like hydroxyapatite are present in natural bone and some of them possess osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties. Ion doped bioceramics could substitute protein-based biosignal molecules to achieve osteogenesis, vasculogenesis, angiogenesis, and stress shielding. This review is a systemic summary on properties, advantages, and limitations of polysaccharide-bioceramic/ion doped bioceramic composites along with their recent advancements in BTE.

Trends and perspectives on the commercialization of bioactive glasses

At least 25 bioactive glass (BG) medical devices have been approved for clinical use by global regulatory agencies. Diverse applications include monolithic implants, bone void fillers, dentin hypersensitivity agents, wound dressing, and cancer therapeutics. The morphology and delivery systems of bioactive glasses have evolved dramatically since the first devices based on 45S5 Bioglass®. The particle size of these devices has generally decreased with the evolution of bioactive glass technology but primarily lies in the micron size range. Morphologies have progressed from glass monoliths to granules, putties, and cements, allowing medical professionals greater flexibility and control. Compositions of these commercial materials have primarily relied on silicate-based systems with varying concentrations of sodium, calcium, and phosphorus. Furthermore, therapeutic ions have been investigated and show promise for greater control of biological stimulation of genetic processes and increased bioactivity. Some commercial products have exploited the borate and phosphate-based compositions for soft tissue repair/regeneration. Mesoporous BGs also promise anticancer therapies due to their ability to deliver drugs in combination with radiotherapy, photothermal therapy, and magnetic hyperthermia. The objective of this article is to critically discuss all clinically approved bioactive glass products. Understanding essential regulatory standards and rules for production is presented through a review of the commercialization process. The future of bioactive glasses, their promising applications, and the challenges are outlined. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Bioactive glasses have evolved into a wide range of products used to treat various medical conditions. They are non-equilibrium, non-crystalline materials that have been designed to induce specific biological activity. They can bond to bone and soft tissues and contribute to their regeneration. They are promising in combating pathogens and malignancies by delivering drugs, inorganic therapeutic ions, and heat for magnetic-induced hyperthermia or laser-induced phototherapy. This review addresses each bioactive glass product approved by regulatory agencies for clinical use. A review of the commercialization process is also provided with insight into critical regulatory standards and guidelines for manufacturing. Finally, a critical evaluation of the future of bioactive glass development, applications, and challenges are discussed.

Limb Salvage in Severe Diabetic Foot Infection

Severe diabetic foot infections (DFI) are both limb threatening and life threatening and associated with negative impact on health-related quality of life. Most severe DFIs require surgical intervention, and the goal of treatment should be preservation of limb function in addition to eradication of infection. Minor amputations are required in approximately 40% and major amputations in approximately 20% of patients. Significant risk factors for lower extremity amputation included male gender, smoking, previous amputation, osteomyelitis, peripheral artery disease, retinopathy, severe infections, gangrene, neuroischemic diabetic foot infections, leukocytosis, positive wound cultures, and isolation of gram-negative bacteria.

Nonoperative and Operative Soft-Tissue and Cartilage Regeneration and Orthopaedic Biologics of the Foot and Ankle: An Orthoregeneration Network Foundation Review

Orthoregeneration is defined as a solution for orthopaedic conditions that harnesses the benefits of biology to improve healing, reduce pain, improve function, and optimally, provide an environment for tissue regeneration. Options include drugs, surgical intervention, scaffolds, biologics as a product of cells, and physical and electromagnetic stimuli. The goal of regenerative medicine is to enhance the healing of tissue after musculoskeletal injuries as both isolated treatment and adjunct to surgical management, using novel therapies to improve recovery and outcomes. Various orthopaedic biologics (orthobiologics) have been investigated for the treatment of pathology involving the foot and ankle (including acute traumatic injuries and fractures, tumor, infection, osteochondral lesions, arthritis, and tendinopathy) and procedures, including osteotomy or fusion. Promising and established treatment modalities include 1) bone-based therapies (such as cancellous or cortical autograft from the iliac crest, proximal tibia, and/or calcaneus, fresh-frozen or freeze-dried cortical or cancellous allograft, including demineralized bone matrix putty or powder combined with growth factors, and synthetic bone graft substitutes, such as calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, bioactive glasses (often in combination with bone marrow aspirate), and polymers; proteins such as bone morphogenic proteins; and platelet-derived growth factors; 2) cartilage-based therapies such as debridement, bone marrow stimulation (such as microfracture or drilling), scaffold-based techniques (such as autologous chondrocyte implantation [ACI] and matrix-induced ACI, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, matrix-associated stem cell transplantation, particulated juvenile cartilage allograft transplantation, and minced local cartilage cells mixed with fibrin and platelet rich plasma [PRP]); and 3) blood, cell-based, and injectable therapies such as PRP, platelet-poor plasma biomatrix loaded with mesenchymal stromal cells, concentrated bone marrow aspirate, hyaluronic acid, and stem or stromal cell therapy, including mesenchymal stem cell allografts, and adipose tissue-derived stem cells, and micronized adipose tissue injections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Acceptance of an Interim Orthosis in Patients with Diabetes in the Immediate Postoperative Chopart Surgery

Chopart amputation is the consequence of severe diabetes-related foot complications. A new interim orthosis allowing the patient a greater degree of mobility after Chopart surgery than currently used systems is now available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the new orthosis compared with traditional treatment. Safety and level of patient acceptance of the device were also investigated. We performed a retrospective case-control observational study involving people with diabetes who underwent Chopart amputation between January 2016 and January 2018. The sample of subjects treated with the innovative orthosis was compared with consecutive patients, who were treated with traditional management. The main study outcomes include major amputation occurrence, ulcer recurrence, healing time, and patient acceptance of the orthosis. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Italian validated version of the Orthotic Prosthetic User's Survey (OPUS) questionnaire. Overall, 27 subjects were enrolled using the new device (mean age 68.7 ± 8.4 years, 70.4% males, mean diabetes duration 22.7 ± 15 years). Clinical baseline characteristics were comparable between the cases and the controls. There was no difference between the groups in the healed wound rate (81.5% vs 80.0% for cases and the control group, respectively, P = .53). The ulcer recurrence rate was higher in the control group compared with subjects using the new orthosis (62.5% vs 24.0%, respectively, P = .04). The use of the innovative orthosis was associated with an 81% lower probability to have ulcer recurrence (odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.04-1.04). No between groups difference was detected for a major amputation rate. The wound healing time was faster for cases compared with controls (160.4 ± 114.1 vs 256.5 ± 112.9 days, P = .05). No adverse events related to the use of the new orthosis were recorded. Patient acceptance of the new orthosis was high. This orthosis can be recommended as an efficient, safe, and well-accepted device after Chopart amputation.

Possible Advantages of S53P4 Bioactive Glass in the Treatment of Septic Osteoarthritis of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint in the Diabetic Foot

Biomechanically, the great toe with its metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint plays a key role in standing and walking, making the first MTP joint one of the main predilection sites for ulcer formation, and consequently for bone and joint infection and even amputation. If conservative treatment fails, the main goal of surgery is to remove all infected tissue and preserve the first ray. To improve surgical outcomes, development of new biomaterials like Bioactive Glass S53P4 has begun. Bioactive Glass is useful because of its antibacterial properties; furthermore, its osteostimulative and osteoconductive qualities make the bone substitute particularly suitable as a bone defect filler for the treatment of osteomyelitis. The aim of our retrospective observational study was to compare the outcomes following ulcerectomy with segmental resection of the infected joint and bone and temporary stabilization with an external fixator, both with and without added Bioactive Glass. A comparison of added Bioactive Glass with the traditional surgical treatment in septic osteoarthritis of the first MTP joint showed Bioactive Glass to be effective. During a one-year follow-up, patients with Bioactive Glass required no additional antibiotic therapy or surgical intervention. Bioactive Glass, when applied to the diabetic foot, showed itself to be a safe bone substitute biomaterial.