Daptomycin for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections

Anaerobic bacteria in chronic wounds: Roles in disease, infection and treatment failure

Infection is among the most common factors that impede wound healing, yet standard treatments routinely fail to resolve chronic wound infections. The chronic wound environment is largely hypoxic/anoxic, and wounds are predominantly colonised by facultative and obligate anaerobic bacteria. Oxygen (O2) limitation is an underappreciated driver of microbiota composition and behaviour in chronic wounds. In this perspective article, we examine how anaerobic bacteria and their distinct physiologies support persistent, antibiotic-recalcitrant infections. We describe the anaerobic energy metabolisms bacteria rely on for long-term survival in the wound environment, and why many antibiotics become less effective under hypoxic conditions. We also discuss obligate anaerobes, which are among the most prevalent taxa to colonise chronic wounds, yet their potential roles in influencing the microbial community and wound healing have been overlooked. All of the most common obligate anaerobes found in chronic wounds are opportunistic pathogens. We consider how these organisms persist in the wound environment and interface with host physiology to hinder wound healing processes or promote chronic inflammation. Finally, we apply our understanding of anaerobic physiologies to evaluate current treatment practices and to propose new strategies for treating chronic wound infections.

Comparison of daptomycin and glycopeptide efficacy and safety for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The indications of daptomycin have been extended to off-label indications including prosthesis-related infection, and bone and joint infection (BJI). However, efficacy and safety have not been thoroughly demonstrated compared with the standard of care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment effect of daptomycin and glycopeptides for complicated infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing daptomycin and standard of care for Gram-positive infections, published until 30 June 2021. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological success. The main safety outcome was any severe adverse event (SAE) (grade  ≥3).

RESULTS

Overall, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1095 patients. Six (75%) were in complicated skin and soft-structure infections, one (12.5%) in bacteraemia and one (12.5%) in a BJI setting. Six RCTs used vancomycin as a comparator and two used either vancomycin or teicoplanin. All-cause mortality and clinical cure were not different between groups. The microbiological cure rate was superior in patients who received daptomycin [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01-1.35)]. The risk of SAEs [RR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36-0.90)] was lower in the daptomycin arm.

CONCLUSIONS

While daptomycin is associated with a significantly lower risk of SAEs and a better microbiological eradication, substantial uncertainty remains about the best treatment strategy in the absence of good-quality evidence, especially in bacteraemia and endocarditis where further RCTs should be conducted.

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.

Systemic Antimicrobial Therapy for Diabetic Foot Infections: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a common complication of diabetes; however, there is clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal antimicrobial selection. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the recent systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of systemic (parenteral or oral) antimicrobials for DFI. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases and the PROSPERO register were searched from January 2015 to January 2023. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses on systemic antimicrobials for DFI, with outcomes of clinical infection resolution or complications, were included. Of the 413 records identified, 6 systematic reviews of 29 individual studies were included. Heterogeneity of individual studies precluded meta-analysis, except for ertapenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam (RR 1.07, 95% CI [0.96-1.19]) and fluoroquinolones versus piperacillin-tazobactam (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.89-1.20]) in one review. The application of the AMSTAR-2 tool determined two reviews to be of high quality. There was no statistical difference in the clinical resolution of infections for 24 different antimicrobial regimens (penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, metronidazole, clindamycin, linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline). However, tigecycline did not meet non-inferiority against ertapenem ± vancomycin (absolute difference -5.5%, 95% CI [-11.0-0.1]) and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse drug events. There is minimal systematic review evidence to suggest one regimen is superior to another for DFI.

The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Related Adverse Events in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Narrative Review of the Literature

The use of antibiotics for the treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) over an extended period of time has been shown to be associated with adverse events (AEs), whereas interactions with concomitant patient medications must also be considered. The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the most frequent and most severe AEs reported in prospective trials and observational studies at the global level in DFI. Gastrointestinal intolerances were the most frequent AEs, from 5% to 22% among all therapies; this was more common when prolonged antibiotic administration was combined with oral beta-lactam or clindamycin or a higher dose of tetracyclines. The proportion of symptomatic colitis due to Clostridium difficile was variable depending on the antibiotic used (0.5% to 8%). Noteworthy serious AEs included hepatotoxicity due to beta-lactams (5% to 17%) or quinolones (3%); cytopenia's related to linezolid (5%) and beta-lactams (6%); nausea under rifampicin, and renal failure under cotrimoxazole. Skin rash was found to rarely occur and was commonly associated with the use of penicillins or cotrimoxazole. AEs from prolonged antibiotic use in patients with DFI are costly in terms of longer hospitalization or additional monitoring care and can trigger additional investigations. The best way to prevent AEs is to keep the duration of antibiotic treatment short and with the lowest dose clinically necessary.

Retrospective Cohort Evaluating the Comparative Effectiveness of Ceftaroline and Daptomycin as First-Line Therapies for Inpatient Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection in the United States Veterans Health Care System

BACKGROUND

Both ceftaroline and daptomycin are possible therapeutic options for diabetic foot infection (DFI) and both are active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection; however, no previous studies have evaluated their effectiveness head-to-head.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared hospital readmission and mortality proportions among patients receiving ceftaroline fosamil or daptomycin for DFI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort, comparative effectiveness study of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to United States Veterans Health Care System hospitals with a diagnosis code for DFI between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2014 with an electronic order for ceftaroline or daptomycin as first-line therapy within 14 days of admission. Baseline characteristics were compared using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Hospital readmission and patient mortality proportions were compared through multivariable logistic regression models with Hispanic ethnicity, prior hospitalization, dyslipidemia, and Charlson comorbidity score as covariates.

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients were included (ceftaroline, n = 71; daptomycin n = 152). At baseline, ceftaroline patients were more likely to be Hispanic (18 vs. 6%, p < 0.01) and have been hospitalized in the past 90 days (34 vs. 19%, p = 0.02). Unadjusted 90-day hospital readmission proportions for ceftaroline versus daptomycin were 34 vs. 49%, and unadjusted 90-day mortality proportions were 1% vs. 8%. In multivariable models, ceftaroline patients were less likely to experience 90-day hospital readmission (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.85) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, ceftaroline was associated with lower 90-day hospital readmission and 90-day mortality compared with daptomycin when used as first-line therapy for DFI.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: 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 as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) 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 the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also 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 adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Effect of High Blood Glucose Level on the Antimicrobial Activity of Daptomycin against Staphylococcus aureus in Streptozotocin-Induced Diabetic Mice

Daptomycin is active against Staphylococcus aureus including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), demonstrating efficacy in the treatment of infections in diabetic patients. However, daptomycin degrades in 5% glucose solution, and data on the efficacy of daptomycin in hyperglycemic patients are limited. Therefore, we investigated the effect of high levels of blood glucose on the efficacy and concentration of daptomycin. The efficacy of simulated human exposure to daptomycin against S. aureus was compared in a neutropenic murine thigh model, with and without hyperglycemia. A clinically isolated MRSA strain and S. aureus ATCC25923 standard strain were used. Daptomycin concentrations, in the serum and at the infected site, were preliminarily analyzed using the high-performance liquid chromatography assay. Even in hyperglycemic mice, the mean concentration of daptomycin in hyperglycemic mice was equivalent to that in untreated mice within the physiological blood glucose levels. Additionally, the efficacy of daptomycin against MRSA was equal to that observed in the untreated and hyperglycemic mice. Based on similar studies using S. aureus ATCC25923, the efficacy in hyperglycemic mice was equal to or greater than that observed in untreated mice. In conclusion, daptomycin is an alternative therapeutic option in diabetic mice with serious staphylococcal infections, regardless of blood glucose control in this animal model.

The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among diabetic patients: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Diabetic patients have multiple risk factors for colonisation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a nosocomial pathogen associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence of MRSA among diabetic patients.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published up to May 2018 that reported primary data on the prevalence of MRSA in 10 or more diabetic patients. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted the data. The main outcomes were the pooled prevalence rates of MRSA colonisation and infection among diabetic populations.

RESULTS

Eligible data sets were divided into three groups containing data about the prevalence of MRSA colonisation or in diabetic foot or other infections. From 23 data sets, the prevalence of MRSA colonisation among 11577 diabetics was 9.20% (95% CI, 6.26-12.63%). Comparison of data from 14 studies that examined diabetic and non-diabetic patients found that diabetics had a 4.75% greater colonisation rate (P < 0.0001). From 41 data sets, the prevalence of MRSA in 10994 diabetic foot infection patients was 16.78% (95% CI, 13.21-20.68%). Among 2147 non-foot skin and soft-tissue infections, the MRSA prevalence rate was 18.03% (95% CI, 6.64-33.41).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of MRSA colonisation among diabetic patients is often higher than among non-diabetics; this may make targeted screening attractive. In the UK, many diabetic patients may already be covered by the current screening policies. The prevalence and impact of MRSA among diabetic healthcare workers requires further research. The high prevalence of MRSA among diabetic foot infections may have implications for antimicrobial resistance, and should encourage strategies aimed at infection prevention or alternative therapies.

Bone penetration of daptomycin in diabetic patients with bacterial foot infections

OBJECTIVES

Daptomycin has shown clinical efficacy in diabetic foot infections (DFI). However, only limited data are available on its bone penetration in this particular population. The aim of this study was to determine daptomycin bone concentrations in patients with DFI undergoing surgery after multiple daptomycin infusions and to determine bone daptomycin inhibitory quotients (IQs) for the predominant gram-positive species involved in DFI.

METHODS

Fourteen adult patients hospitalized with DFI treated with daptomycin and requiring surgical bone debridement and amputation were included in this single-centre prospective study. Daptomycin concentrations in serum and bone were determined by HPLC at steady state. Bone IQs were then calculated according to different minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs; range 0.25-4mg/l) that are representative of the main MICs for Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), and Enterococcus sp populations.

RESULTS

Residual and peak concentrations varied from 4.5mg/l to 39.9mg/l and from 31.8mg/l to 110.9mg/l, respectively. Bone daptomycin concentrations at the moment of surgery varied from 1.2mg/l to 17mg/l. Up to a MIC of 1mg/l, which is the epidemiological cut-off value (ECOFF) and breakpoint value for S. aureus and CoNS, all bone daptomycin IQs were positive. The highest bone IQs were observed with Staphylococcus species. Calculated bone IQs for Enterococcus species were often weak at MIC values near the ECOFF.

CONCLUSIONS

Daptomycin penetrates bone well in patients treated for DFI. At an initially recommended dosage of 6mg/kg, bone concentrations are likely to be effective against staphylococcal infections and infections due to low-MIC Enterococcus.

Classification, microbiology and treatment of diabetic foot infections

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a common complication of type-1 and type-2 diabetes. About 10-15% of patients with diabetes develop foot ulcers. A validated foot ulcer classification system that will support the development of treatment strategis is necessary for clinicians managing DFUs. More than 10 classification systems have been described by researchers. Another important aspect of the management of DFUs is the proper identification of causative pathogens that trigger infections. While conventional diagnostic methods, such as swabs, cultures and biopsies are more widely used, novel molecular techniques have been exploring bacterial identification and quantification. Knowledge of the microbial aetiologies in diabetic foot infections, and understanding of antibiotic resistance, is critical for the effective management and treatment of these infected wounds. Initial antibiotic regimens are usually selected empirically. A set of common principles may help avoid selecting either an unnecessarily broad or inappropriately narrow antibiotic treatment regimen. In this review we provide a comprehensive summary and description of classification systems of diabetic foot infections, and a comprehensive discussion of microbiology.

Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections in China: a Phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

Few randomized controlled studies have compared antibiotic regimens against diabetic foot infections (DFIs) in Chinese patients. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of DFIs in Chinese patients.

METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe DFIs requiring parenteral antibiotics were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive ertapenem (1.0 g once daily) or piperacillin/tazobactam (4.5 g every 8 h) by 30 min intravenous (iv) infusions for ≥5 days. The primary outcome was favourable clinical response at discontinuation of iv therapy (DCIV). An evaluable-patient population was identified for primary analysis of non-inferiority at -15%. Safety was assessed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01370616.

RESULTS

Of 565 patients randomized, 443 patients (ertapenem = 219 and piperacillin/tazobactam = 224) were clinically evaluable for primary analysis. In the clinically evaluable population, the proportions of patients with favourable clinical response at DCIV were 93.6% (205/219) and 97.3% (218/224) in the ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively (difference: -3.8%, 95% CI: -8.3%, 0.0%). Ertapenem had a significantly lower favourable clinical response rate (91.5% versus 97.2%, 95% CI for difference: -12.1%, -0.3%) at DCIV in severe DFI patients. In the modified ITT population, 88.8% (237/267) and 90.6% (241/266) of patients in the ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively, had favourable clinical responses at DCIV (difference: -1.9%, 95% CI: -7.3%, 3.3%). Microbiological eradications of causative pathogens and adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ertapenem was non-inferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in Chinese patients with DFIs. Ertapenem treatment resulted in a markedly lower rate of clinical resolution in severe DFIs.

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.

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.

Do Diabetic Foot Infections With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Differ From Those With Other Pathogens?

There is controversy as to whether or not diabetic foot infections (DFIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are associated with worse outcomes than DFIs caused by other pathogens. To address this issue we performed a nonsystematic literature search of published articles in English language journals seeking studies reporting on the outcomes of DFIs related to their microbiology. We retrieved 48 articles published from 1999 to 2013 that described a total of 7771 cases of DFI. The overall proportion of DFIs with an isolate of S aureus was about 30%; just over one third of these (11% of all cases) were MRSA strains. Among the DFI cases caused by MRSA 1543 were episodes of soft tissue infections and 113 of osteomyelitis, while non-MRSA organisms caused 5761 soft tissue infections and 354 cases of osteomyelitis. Only 5 of the included articles attempted a comparison between DFI caused by MRSA and those caused by other pathogens, with no clear differences noted. The median total duration of antibiotic therapy for DFI caused by MRSA was 26 days, of which a median of 10 days was given intravenously. Only a few articles reported the proportion of patients with a recurrence, but they often did not differentiate between MRSA and non-MRSA cases. Four publications reported a worse functional or microbiological outcome in MRSA, compared to non-MRSA, cases, but the findings were variable and differences did not seem to be significant. Many trials failed to adjust for case-mix or to definitively demonstrate a relationship between microbiology and outcomes. Few of the articles specifically commented on whether the MRSA isolates were health care- or community-acquired strains. Notwithstanding the substantial limitations of the available literature, there does not appear to be a need for any special treatment for DFI caused by MRSA. The current guidelines for treating according to established international recommendations seem appropriate.

Targeting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with short salt-resistant synthetic peptides

The seriousness of microbial resistance combined with the lack of new antimicrobials has increased interest in the development of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) as novel therapeutics. In this study, we evaluated the antimicrobial activities of two short synthetic peptides, namely, RRIKA and RR. These peptides exhibited potent antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, and their antimicrobial effects were significantly enhanced by addition of three amino acids in the C terminus, which consequently increased the amphipathicity, hydrophobicity, and net charge. Moreover, RRIKA and RR demonstrated a significant and rapid bactericidal effect against clinical and drug-resistant Staphylococcus isolates, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA), vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA), linezolid-resistant S. aureus, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. In contrast to many natural AMPs, RRIKA and RR retained their activity in the presence of physiological concentrations of NaCl and MgCl2. Both RRIKA and RR enhanced the killing of lysostaphin more than 1,000-fold and eradicated MRSA and VRSA isolates within 20 min. Furthermore, the peptides presented were superior in reducing adherent biofilms of S. aureus and S. epidermidis compared to results with conventional antibiotics. Our findings indicate that the staphylocidal effects of our peptides were through permeabilization of the bacterial membrane, leading to leakage of cytoplasmic contents and cell death. Furthermore, peptides were not toxic to HeLa cells at 4- to 8-fold their antimicrobial concentrations. The potent and salt-insensitive antimicrobial activities of these peptides present an attractive therapeutic candidate for treatment of multidrug-resistant S. aureus infections.

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.

Effect of Daptomycin on Local Interleukin-6, Matrix Metalloproteinase-9, and Metallopeptidase Inhibitor 1 in Patients With MRSA-Infected Diabetic Foot

Infection is a major cause of the diabetic foot syndrome that is promoted by the increased burden of multiresistant germs like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Maximizing positive outcome for serious MRSA infections requires an aggressive treatment approach and careful monitoring of the healing process. Therefore, we examined 8 patients with MRSA-infected diabetic foot syndrome of Wagner classification grade 2 or 3 (corresponding to the Texas classification stage 2 or 3) during antibiotic treatment with daptomycin. We documented the wound size and obtained samples of wound secretion for analyses of proinflammatory interleukin-6 (IL-6), protease (matrix metalloproteinase-9 [MMP-9]), and antiprotease (metallopeptidase inhibitor 1 [TIMP-1]) activity. During the course of anti-MRSA therapy, we observed a decrease in the concentration of local IL-6 within the first 3 days followed by a decrease of MMP-9 and an increase of TIMP-1. Finally, a reduction of wound size was documented. The present data show that efficient antimicrobial treatment with daptomycin has a number of beneficial effects on wound healing at the molecular level in MRSA-infected diabetic foot ulcers.

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.

Daptomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a serious, difficult-to-treat infection, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Vancomycin has been the standard treatment for MRSA infection, but lower response rates in MRSA skin infections have been reported. This analysis assessed the outcome and safety of daptomycin therapy in patients with a DFI caused by MRSA.

METHODS

Using the Cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience and the European Cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience (2006-2009), 79 patients with MRSA DFI were identified and included in this analysis.

RESULTS

In the 74 evaluable patients, daptomycin was administered at a median dose of 4.8 mg/kg primarily every 24 hours (85.1%) and for a median of 15.0 days. Overall, 77.0% of the patients (57 of 74) received initial therapy with activity against MRSA; however, of patients receiving daptomycin as second-line therapy (n = 31), only 45.2% were treated with an antibiotic agent active against MRSA. The overall clinical success and treatment failure rates were 89.2% and 10.8%, respectively. Success with daptomycin therapy was higher in patients who had surgery and in those whose initial therapy was daptomycin. Eleven patients had 14 adverse events, two of which were possibly related to daptomycin use and led to discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large real-world cohort of patients with MRSA DFI, daptomycin therapy was shown to be generally well tolerated and effective. The use of an anti-MRSA antibiotic agent should be considered when implementing first-line antibiotic drug therapy for DFI in countries where MRSA is common to avoid inappropriate empirical treatment and potential negative effects on outcomes.

Effect of daptomycin on local interleukin-6, matrix metalloproteinase-9, and metallopeptidase inhibitor 1 in patients with MRSA-infected diabetic foot

Infection is a major cause of the diabetic foot syndrome being aggravating by the increased burden of multiresistant germs like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Maximizing positive outcome for serious MRSA infections requires an aggressive treatment approach and a careful monitoring of the healing process. Therefore, we examined 8 patients with MRSA-infected diabetic foot syndrome Wagner classification grades 2 or 3 (corresponding to the Texas classification stage 2 and 3) during antibiotic treatment with daptomycin. We documented the wound size and obtained samples of wound secretion for analyses of pro-inflammatory interleukin-6 (IL-6), protease (matrix metalloproteinase-9 [MMP-9]), and antiprotease activity (metallopeptidase inhibitor 1 [TIMP-1]). During the course of anti-MRSA therapy, a decrease in the concentration of local IL-6 within the first 3 days followed by a drop of MMP-9 and an increase of TIMP-1 was observed. Finally, a reduction of wound size could be documented. The present data show that efficient antimicrobial treatment with daptomycin leads to a number of beneficial processes at the molecular level of wound healing in MRSA-infected diabetic foot ulcers.

Treatment options for multidrug-resistant bacteria

As a consequence of antibiotic overuse and misuse, nosocomial infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria represent a physician's nightmare throughout the world. No newer antimicrobials active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the main multidrug-resistant nosocomial pathogen, are available or under investigation. The only exceptions are linezolid, some newer glycopeptides (dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin) and daptomycin (a lipopeptide), which are active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) strains, as well as tigecycline, a potent in vitro glycylcycline against MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter baumannii and entended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)+ Enterobacteriaceae. Colistin, an antibiotic of the 1950s has been rediscovered by intensive care unit physicians for use against ESBL+ Enterobacteriaceae, as well as against multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii isolates. Although success rates with colistin range between 50 and 73%, almost all studies are retrospective. Immunostimulation efforts against S. aureus are still under development. As antibiotic research and development stagnate, rational policies for prescribing existing antibiotics plus strict infection control are the current mainstay efforts for preventing and combating multidrug-resistant bacterial infections.

Role of linezolid in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common cause of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). Antibiotic choices for these infections continue to evolve. History has seen penicillin progress to antistaphylococcal penicillins and cephalosporins, but these drugs are now giving way to drugs that are effective against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). While vancomycin has been the gold standard to treat MRSA infections, newer therapeutic options have been developed over the last 5 years. These include quinupristin-dalfopristin, daptomycin, tigecycline and linezolid, which is the focus for this review. Linezolid is efficacious in the treatment of cSSTIs (including diabetic foot infections) caused by Gram-positive organisms (including MRSA), with a well-defined safety profile and straightforward dosing. It is also approved for nosocomial pneumonia, community-acquired pneumonia and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Linezolid has an oral and parenteral formulation, which are equivalent. The oral formulation has the potential to offer economic benefits as compared with other therapies. Currently, there are only a few new antibiotics in development with MRSA activity. The proper use of all antibiotics, including these newer agents, is increasingly important if we are to slow the evolution of microbial resistance.

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.

Comparative analysis of empiric antimicrobial treatments for skin and soft tissue infections in newly hospitalized patients

PURPOSE

Intravenous vancomycin is the standard empiric treatment for complicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) due to its coverage against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The objective of this study was to compare the hospital length of stay (LOS) between vancomycin-treated patients and patients receiving newer anti-MRSA agents. The study also aimed to identify factors associated with therapy change in patients receiving vancomycin on admission.

METHODS

Electronic medical records were used to conduct this retrospective cohort study. The LOS was compared among 5 groups of adult patients with admission diagnoses for SSTI who were initiated on linezolid, daptomycin, ceftaroline, tigecycline, or vancomycin. Survival analysis was used to identify factors associated with therapy change from vancomycin to another study medication.

RESULTS

Vancomycin was prescribed in 1046 (92%) admissions. Although none of the between-group differences in LOS reached statistical significance, there was a trend toward shorter LOS in vancomycin-treated patients compared to linezolid-treated patients (P = .059). Coagulopathy was independently associated with increased likelihood of therapy change from vancomycin (hazard ratio = 4.71; P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of SSTI, newer agents result in LOS comparable to vancomycin. In patients initiated on vancomycin, therapy change was associated with longer LOS. Coagulopathy was independently associated with increased probability of therapy change.

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.

Current use of daptomycin in cardiac surgery and postoperative intensive care

Infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens have an increasing impact on patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Preoperative infections, such as endocarditis, and postoperative infections, including wound and device infection, influence patient outcomes. Special interest needs to be taken in patients admitted to cardiac surgical intensive care units, as these patients are at high risk for infections, particularly nosocomial pneumonia, catheter-related and wound infections. The increasing numbers of infections due to Gram-positive multidrug-resistant pathogens underline the necessity for newer antibiotics with bactericidal effects and a more favorable profile of side effects. Daptomycin, a lipopeptide antimicrobial agent with bactericide activity against Gram-positive organisms, has been successfully used in the treatment of complicated infections due to Gram-positive multidrug-resistant pathogens, especially regarding endocarditis, wound infections, device and catheter-related infections in intensive care units. In this review, the authors will summarize therapeutic potential of daptomycin in cardiac surgery and postoperative intensive care.

In vivo bioluminescence imaging to evaluate systemic and topical antibiotics against community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-infected skin wounds in mice

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) frequently causes skin and soft tissue infections, including impetigo, cellulitis, folliculitis, and infected wounds and ulcers. Uncomplicated CA-MRSA skin infections are typically managed in an outpatient setting with oral and topical antibiotics and/or incision and drainage, whereas complicated skin infections often require hospitalization, intravenous antibiotics, and sometimes surgery. The aim of this study was to develop a mouse model of CA-MRSA wound infection to compare the efficacy of commonly used systemic and topical antibiotics. A bioluminescent USA300 CA-MRSA strain was inoculated into full-thickness scalpel wounds on the backs of mice and digital photography/image analysis and in vivo bioluminescence imaging were used to measure wound healing and the bacterial burden. Subcutaneous vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid similarly reduced the lesion sizes and bacterial burden. Oral linezolid, clindamycin, and doxycycline all decreased the lesion sizes and bacterial burden. Oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole decreased the bacterial burden but did not decrease the lesion size. Topical mupirocin and retapamulin ointments both reduced the bacterial burden. However, the petrolatum vehicle ointment for retapamulin, but not the polyethylene glycol vehicle ointment for mupirocin, promoted wound healing and initially increased the bacterial burden. Finally, in type 2 diabetic mice, subcutaneous linezolid and daptomycin had the most rapid therapeutic effect compared with vancomycin. Taken together, this mouse model of CA-MRSA wound infection, which utilizes in vivo bioluminescence imaging to monitor the bacterial burden, represents an alternative method to evaluate the preclinical in vivo efficacy of systemic and topical antimicrobial agents.

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.

Evaluation of Vancomycin Dosing and Monitoring in Adult Medicine Patients

Purpose

To assess the clinical impact of a vancomycin dosing protocol and monitoring tool on initial dose, dosing interval, and trough concentrations in adult medicine patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review of adult medicine patients who received at least one dose of vancomycin and were admitted during the pre-implementation period, February 1 to April 2009, or during the post-implementation period, June 1 to October 31, 2009. All outcomes for patients in the pre-implementation group were compared to those in the post-implementation group. The primary outcomes were frequency of appropriate initial vancomycin dose and dosing interval. The secondary outcomes included frequency of appropriate initial vancomycin trough concentrations, mean number of levels drawn per patient, and mean duration of therapy.

Results

A total of 450 patients were identified, with 225 patients in each study group. Patients with an appropriate initial vancomycin dose significantly increased in the post-implementation group (56% vs 40%; P < .001). The number of patients with an appropriate original dosing interval (67% vs 63%; P = 0.32), appropriate initial trough concentration (44% vs 45%; P = 0.89), mean number of levels drawn (1.9 vs 2.1; P = 0.56), and duration of therapy (4.9 vs 5.0; P = 0.77) was similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

The implementation of a vancomycin empiric dosing protocol and monitoring tool had a significant impact on the initial dose. Further education regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring is warranted to improve initial dosing interval, initial trough concentration, number of levels drawn, and duration of therapy.

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.

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.

Diabetic foot infections: microbiological aspects, current and future antibiotic therapy focusing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Diabetic patients are at increased risk of complicated skin, skin structure and bone infections including infections of diabetic foot ulcerations (DFU). Analyses of epidemiology and microbial pathogenicity show that staphylococci seem to be predestined to induce such infections. In addition, multidrug resistance particularly due to an increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) seems to be the challenge for effective antibiotic therapy. With regard to infections with MRSA, classical agents like vancomycin, linezolid, fosfomycin or trimethroprim-sulphametoxazol might be agents of choice in DFU. New-generation drugs including broad-spectrum tetracyclines like tigecycline, first and second generation of cyclic lipopeptides, anti-MRSA β-lactams including ceftobiprole and anti-MRSA antibodies are developed or in progress and the hope for the future.