Treating diabetic foot infections with sequential intravenous to oral moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin–tazobactam/amoxicillin–clavulanate

Anaerobes in diabetic foot infections: pathophysiology, epidemiology, virulence, and management

SUMMARYDiabetic foot infections (DFI) are a public health problem worldwide. DFI are polymicrobial, biofilm-associated infections involving complex bacterial communities organized in functional equivalent pathogroups, all including anaerobes. Indeed, multiple pathophysiological factors favor the growth of anaerobes in this context. However, the prevalence, role, and contribution of anaerobes in wound evolution remain poorly characterized due to their challenging detection. Studies based on culture reviewed herein showed a weighted average of 17% of patients with anaerobes. Comparatively, the weighted average of patients with anaerobes identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing was 83.8%. Culture largely underestimated not only the presence but also the diversity of anaerobes compared with cultivation-independent approaches but both methods showed that anaerobic Gram-negative bacilli and Gram-positive cocci were the most commonly identified in DFI. Anaerobes were more present in deeper lesions, and their detection was associated with fever, malodorous lesions, and ulcer depth and duration. More specifically, initial abundance of Peptoniphilus spp. was associated with ulcer-impaired healing, Fusobacterium spp. detection was significantly correlated with the duration of DFI, and the presence of Bacteroides spp. was significantly associated with amputation. Antimicrobial resistance of anaerobes in DFI remains slightly studied and warrants more consideration in the context of increasing resistance of the most frequently identified anaerobes in DFI. The high rate of patients with DFI-involving anaerobes, the increased knowledge on the species identified, their virulence factors, and their potential role in wound evolution support recommendations combining debridement and antibiotic therapy effective on anaerobes in moderate and severe DFI.

Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Breakpoints Against Enterobacterales: Rationale for Revision by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

Amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) is among the most frequently prescribed antibiotics globally. It has broad antibacterial activity against gram-positive, gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria and has been used to treat infections caused by a broad range of pathogens. AMC breakpoints against Enterobacterales were initially set in the 1980s. However, since that time, increases in antibiotic resistance, advances in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses, and publication of additional clinical data prompted a reassessment by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Based on this contemporary reappraisal, the CLSI retained the Enterobacterales breakpoints but revised comments regarding dosing associated with use of the AMC breakpoints in the 2022 supplement of M100. This viewpoint provides insight into the CLSI breakpoint reevaluation process and summarizes the data and rationale used to support these revisions to the AMC Enterobacterales breakpoint.

Definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update)

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes-related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes-related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

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.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Antibiotic Use in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infections: Focus on Clinical Cure

BACKGROUND

The use of antibiotics in diabetic foot ulcer infections (DFUI) is essential in reducing morbidity. Optimal administration of antibiotics can improve clinical outcomes and reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance. This study aims to review the efficacy, in terms of clinical cure, of various regimens and the duration of antibiotic administration in DFUI patients, based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The efficacy based on microbiological response is also reviewed as the secondary outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used three databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with DFUI who required antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included in the systematic review. The study locations and bacterial patterns varied, with the most common pathogen being Staphylococcus aureus. Most studies did not demonstrate a significant difference in clinical cure and pathogen eradication, either in the comparison between systemic and topical antibiotics or in the duration of administration. Some studies had similar characteristics and were analyzed to conclude. These studies showed that ertapenem had comparable efficacy to piperacillin/tazobactam. Similar results were also conducted from studies of piperacillin-tazobactam+amoxicillin-clavulanic acid vs. moxifloxacin.

CONCLUSION

Most studies have heterogeneous characteristics, possibly due to differences in research location. Therefore, there is no strong evidence to recommend a specific antibiotic with the highest efficacy. However, since all included studies are RCTs, this review provides a good summary in considering antibiotic choices when treating DFUI patients.

Fluoroquinolone Prescribing for Diabetic Foot Infections following an FDA Drug Safety Communication for Aortic Aneurysm Risk

In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Drug Safety Communication regarding fluoroquinolone-associated aortic aneurysm. This quasi-experimental study assessed antibiotic prescribing for 198 patients hospitalized with diabetic foot infection. Following the warning, median inpatient fluoroquinolone days of therapy (DOT) decreased from 3 to 0 days (P < 0.001), corresponding to increased beta-lactam DOT and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy enrollment. FDA communications may influence antibiotic selection and transitions of care, representing opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship.

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.

Combinatorial Drug Therapy for Controlling Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Its Association With Chronic Condition of Diabetic Foot Ulcer

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a major complication of diabetes mellitus, major observations of DFU cases have reported on amputation of foot region, and microbial bioburden during DFU is a major cause that affects healing of the wound regions. Pathogenic microbes are routinely isolated from these wound regions, especially Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, and Escherichia coli have been reported, whereas higher prevalence of Pseudomonas species during chronic condition in the deeper part of the wound, when left untreated, leads to gangrene. Multiple drug-resistant Pseudomonas strains are a new threat because of their biofilm-forming ability, making it more potent and incurable. Acyl homoserine lactones (AHL) are a group of signaling molecules that can regulate biofilm growth, and Las and Rhl operon generally work in tandem to initiate biofilm formation by Pseudomonas species. These signaling molecules also initiate virulence factors that correlates upregulation of inflammatory responses, and AHL can be a therapeutic target in order to prevent the efficacy of multiple drug-resistant strains that form biofilm and also can be an alternative solution against control of multiple drug-resistant strains.

The safety of treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

INTRODUCTION

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI) may develop in both in-patients and out-patients, possibly with a severe clinical presentation. Since most phase 3 randomized clinical trials have shown non-inferiority in efficacy across different agents, considerations regarding their different safety profiles inevitably play a crucial role in the everyday choice about which of them should be employed for the treatment of ABSSSI.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the safety profile of different treatment options for ABSSSI.

EXPERT OPINION

The spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the last decades has inevitably influenced the therapeutic approach to ABSSSI. Adequate knowledge of the peculiar toxicity profile of each drug active against MRSA is essential for guiding, monitoring and managing adverse events, in turn reducing any unfavorable impact of toxicity on patients' outcomes. In the next five years, potential toxicity will play a critical role in establishing the best available therapy for each specific patient, together with consideration regarding the possibility of avoiding hospitalization or allowing a switch from intravenous to oral therapy and early discharge.

Use of microdialysis for the assessment of fluoroquinolone pharmacokinetics in the clinical practice

Antibacterial drugs, including fluoroquinolones, can exert their therapeutic action only with adequate penetration at the infection site. Multiple factors, such as rate of protein binding, drug liposolubility and organ blood-flow all influence ability of antibiotics to penetrate target tissues. Microdialysis is an in vivo sampling technique that has been successfully applied to measure the distribution of fluoroquinolones in the interstitial fluid of different tissues both in animal studies and clinical setting. Tissue concentrations need to be interpreted within the context of the pathogenesis and causative agents implicated in infections. Integration of microdialysis -derived tissue pharmacokinetics with pharmacodynamic data offers crucial information for correlating exposure with antibacterial effect. This review explores these concepts and provides an overview of tissue concentrations of fluoroquinolones derived from microdialysis studies and explores the therapeutic implications of fluoroquinolone distribution at various target tissues.

Comparison of three antimicrobial strategies in diabetic foot infections post-amputation

BACKGROUND

The 2012 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend antimicrobial treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) post-amputation, but the optimal route and duration are poorly defined.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether the selection of a specific antimicrobial treatment modality affected hospital and patient outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of hospital admissions of adults admitted to ourhealthcare system with a primary diagnosis of DFIs post-amputation. The groups were separated into patients who received intravenous antimicrobials (IV), oral antimicrobials (PO), or no antimicrobials (NA). Outcomes included average length of stay among others.

RESULTS

Of the 200 patients screened, 120 patients were included (IV n = 72; PO n = 20; NA n = 28). No statistically significant differences were identified in average LOS (IV = 9.97 ± 5.85, PO = 8.83 ± 7.37, NA = 9.33 ± 5.91 days; p = 0.73). However, post-operative (post-op) LOS was significantly shorter in the PO group (PO = 3.43 ± 2.56, IV = 7.34 ± 5.95, NA = 5.81 ± 4.18 days; p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The results of our study indicate that a PO antimicrobial treatment strategy post amputation for DFIs has the potential to decrease post-op LOS without increasing the risk of readmission. Based on the results of our study, we feel consideration should be given to transition to oral antimicrobials soon after amputation to facilitate discharge and decrease the utilization of intravenous antimicrobials.

Antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Diabetic foot infection is a common diabetic complication that may end in lower limb amputation if not treated properly. We performed this systematic review to assess the clinical efficacy of different antibiotic regimens, whether systemic or topical, in the treatment of moderate to severe diabetic foot infections. We searched Medline, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of antibiotic regimens in moderate to severe diabetic foot infections. The primary outcome of interest was the clinical efficacy (cure/improvement rates) of the regimens. We included 16 trials (4,158 patients) in this review, from which we extracted 10 comparisons: some trials compared systemic antibiotics to each other, others compared systemic to topical agents, while one study compared the combined topical and systemic agents to systemic antibiotics alone. Qualitative analysis of the findings of these studies showed that: (1) pipracillin/tazobactam was superior to ertapenem in severe infections (clinical resolution rate: 91.5% compared with PIP/TAZ 97.2%, p ≤ 0.04), but had similar efficacy in moderate infections, (2) ertapenem was more effective than tigecycline in moderate to severe infections (absolute difference -5.5, [95% CI -11.0, 0.1]), (3) the adjuvant use of topical agents with systemic antibiotics improved the outcomes, compared with systemic antibiotics alone (p = 0.024), (4) the rates of recurrence and re-ulceration were significantly lower in patients using the amino-penicillin regimen, compared with those using oral/intravenous ofloxacin, and (5) lower rates of complications accompanied the imipenem/cilastatin regimen, compared with the pipracillin/tazobactam regimen (p = 0.13). In conclusion, data from the included studies showed better results for ertapenem when compared with tigecycline; however, it was inferior to pipracillin/tazobactam in severe infections. The adjuvant use of topical agents improves the efficacy of systemic antibiotics in diabetic foot infection.

Emerging treatment options for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: focus on intravenous delafloxacin

The increase in hospitalization due to acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by resistant pathogens supports the need for new treatment options. Antimicrobial options for ABSSSI that provide broad-spectrum coverage, including gram-negative pathogens and multidrug-resistant gram-positive bacteria, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), are limited. Delafloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone available as intravenous and oral formulations and is characterized by an increased efficacy in acidic environments and activity on bacterial biofilm. Delafloxacin displays enhanced in vitro activity against MRSA, and enterococci, while maintaining efficacy against gram-negative pathogens and anaerobes. Delafloxacin has been studied for the treatment of ABSSSI and respiratory infections. Phase III studies have demonstrated noninferiority of delafloxacin compared to vancomycin, linezolid, tigecycline, and the combination of vancomycin plus aztreonam in the treatment of ABSSSI. Due to its favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics, the wide spectrum of action, and the potential for sequential therapy, delafloxacin represents a promising option in the empirical and targeted treatment of ABSSSI, both in hospital- and in community-based care.

Assessing the Effect of Piperacillin/Tazobactam on Hematological Parameters in Patients Admitted with Moderate or Severe Foot Infections

INTRODUCTION

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a commonly used antibiotic for the empirical treatment of severe diabetic foot infections. One of the most feared complications of this drug is the development of pancytopenia. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of piperacillin/tazobactam caused any hematological changes in patients admitted with severe diabetes-related foot infections from a specialist multidisciplinary foot clinic. Specifically, looking at whether it caused anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

A 1-year retrospective analysis of patients admitted to a tertiary care center for treatment of diabetes-related foot infection using piperacillin/tazobactam. Hematological indices, urea and electrolytes, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were recorded pretreatment, during treatment, and posttreatment. HbA1c, vitamin B₁₂, folate, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and free thyroxin were also analyzed to exclude any potential confounders as a cause of pancytopenia.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were admitted between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 who received piperacillin/tazobactam for severe diabetes-related foot infection. On admission, white cell count and CRP were raised and fell significantly within the first 48 h. Other hematological factors did not change. Five patients developed a mild pancytopenia, of which three were unexplained.

CONCLUSION

In this relatively small cohort, pancytopenia did not occur. As such, piperacillin/tazobactam appeared to have a low risk of adverse hematological outcomes and remains the treatment of choice for severe diabetes-related foot infections.

Delafloxacin: design, development and potential place in therapy

Delafloxacin (DLX) is a new fluoroquinolone pending approval, which has shown a good in vitro and in vivo activity against major pathogens associated with skin and soft tissue infections and community-acquired respiratory tract infections. DLX also shows good activity against a broad spectrum of microorganisms, including those resistant to other fluoroquinolones, as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Its pharmacokinetic properties and excellent activity in acidic environments make DLX an alternative in the treatment of these and other infections. In this manuscript, a detailed analysis of this new fluoroquinolone is performed, from its chemical structure to its in vivo activity in recently published clinical trials. Its possible place in the current antimicrobial outlook and in other infectious models is also discussed.

Aerobic bacterial profile and antibiotic resistance in patients with diabetic foot infections

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine the frequencies of bacterial isolates cultured from diabetic foot infections and assess their resistance and susceptibility to commonly used antibiotics.

METHODS

This prospective study included 41 patients with diabetic foot lesions. Bacteria were isolated from foot lesions, and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern was determined using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method and/or broth method [minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)].

RESULTS

The most common location of ulceration was the toe (54%), followed by the plantar surface (27%) and dorsal portion (19%). A total of 89 bacterial isolates were obtained from 30 patients. The infections were predominantly due to Gram-positive bacteria and polymicrobial bacteremia. The most commonly isolated Gram-positive bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. The most commonly isolated Gram-negative bacteria were Proteus spp. and Enterobacterspp., followed by Escherichia coli, Pseudomonasspp., and Citrobacterspp. Nine cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) had cefoxitin resistance, and among these MRSA isolates, 3 were resistant to vancomycin with the MIC technique. The antibiotic imipenem was the most effective against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and gentamicin was effective against Gram-negative bacteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study confirmed the high prevalence of multidrug-resistant pathogens in diabetic foot ulcers. It is necessary to evaluate the different microorganisms infecting the wound and to know the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of the isolates from the infected wound. This knowledge is crucial for planning treatment with the appropriate antibiotics, reducing resistance patterns, and minimizing healthcare costs.

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.

The role of anaerobes in diabetic foot infections

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Comparison of the microbiology and antibiotic treatment among diabetic and nondiabetic patients hospitalized for cellulitis or cutaneous abscess

BACKGROUND

Among diabetics, complicated skin infections may involve gram-negative pathogens; however, the microbiology of cellulitis and cutaneous abscess is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the microbiology and prescribing patterns between diabetics and nondiabetics hospitalized for cellulitis or abscess.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of 2 published retrospective cohorts.

SETTING/PATIENTS

Adults hospitalized for cellulitis or abscess, excluding infected ulcers or deep tissue infections, at 7 academic and community facilities.

METHODS

Microbiological findings and antibiotic use were compared among diabetics and nondiabetics. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with exposure to broad gram-negative therapy, defined as receipt of at least 2 calendar days of β-lactamase inhibitors, second- to fifth-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, carbapenems, tigecycline, aminoglycosides, or colistin.

RESULTS

Of 770 total patients with cellulitis or abscess, 167 (22%) had diabetes mellitus. Among the 38% of cases with a positive culture, an aerobic gram-positive organism was isolated in 90% of diabetics and 92% of nondiabetics (P = 0.59); aerobic gram-negative organisms were isolated in 7% and 12%, respectively (P = 0.28). Overall, diabetics were more likely than nondiabetics to be exposed to broad gram-negative therapy (54% vs 44% of cases, P = 0.02). By logistic regression, diabetes mellitus was independently associated with exposure to broad gram-negative therapy (odds ratio: 1.66, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-2.40).

CONCLUSION

In cases of cellulitis or abscess associated with a positive culture, gram-negative pathogens were not more common among diabetics compared with nondiabetics. However, diabetics were overall more likely to be exposed to broad gram-negative therapy suggesting this prescribing practice may not be not warranted.

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.

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

PURPOSE

To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women's inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter.

METHODS

We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998-2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline.

RESULTS

Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n=52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n=13) and 9% (n=7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.

Sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin monotherapy for complicated skin and skin structure infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The presumed superiority of moxifloxacin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) is based on laboratory data, but has not yet been established on clinical grounds. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous (i.v.)/oral (p.o.) moxifloxacin monotherapy for the treatment of cSSSIs.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to November 2012 were systematically retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Finally, a meta-analysis of all RCTs eligible for inclusion criteria was performed.

RESULTS

Three studies that enrolled 2255 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between patients given moxifloxacin and those given other antibiotics with regard to clinical success rate [1667 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.09, p = 0.18], bacteriological success rate (bacteriological success rates: 1502 patients, OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.18, p = 0.45) or mortality (2207 patients, OR = 1.96, 95% CI 0.79-4.88, p = 0.15). Significantly, more overall adverse events (AEs) were associated with the use of moxifloxacin than with other antibiotics (2207 patients, OR = 1.21, 95%CI 1.00-1.45, p = 0.04). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related AEs, serious AEs or serious drug-related AEs between patients given moxifloxacin and those given other antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Sequential i.v./p.o. moxifloxacin monotherapy is an effective and relatively safe option for the treatment of cSSSIs. Other benefits of moxifloxacin may make it a more viable option compared with the currently used regimens.

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.

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.

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

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

Medical management of diabetic foot infections

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

Diagnostics and treatment of the diabetic foot

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

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

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

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.

Microbiology at first visit of moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infection with antimicrobial activity and a survey of quinolone monotherapy

Samples from 1295 patients with diabetic foot infection were evaluated; 4332 samples were collected with an average of 3.3 samples per patient. Fifty-seven percent of patients had a 2B ulcer and 23% had a 3B ulcer according to Texas University Classification. In 64.2% of samples collected at first visit an etiologic agent was identified. About 40% of the positive samples were polymicrobial. Gram positive bacteria were more frequently isolated (52.6%), Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently isolated single agent (29.9%) and MRSA was 22% of S. aureus. Enterococcus spp., mainly Enterococcus faecalis, were 9.9%, all vancomycin susceptible except 2 isolates. Streptococci were 4.6%, more than 60% Streptococcus agalactiae. Gram negative rods were 40.6%, with enterobacteria 23.5% and Pseudomonas aeruginosa 10.3%. Anaerobes were only 0.3%, probably due to culture methods applied in our laboratory. Cotrimoxazole, rifampin and doxycycline were still active against S. aureus. ESBL producers, among enterobacteria, were 10%, mainly Escherichia coli and Proteus spp. Only colistin had a rate of susceptibility against P. aeruginosa above 90%. Levofloxacin had the best clinical activity with respect to the other quinolones, but when it failed, selected more resistant strains with respect to moxifloxacin among S. aureus and with respect to ciprofloxacin among P. aeruginosa.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

An overview of foot infections in diabetes

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The treatment of diabetic foot infections: focus on ertapenem

Clinically, 3 distinct stages of diabetic foot infection may be recognized: localized infection, spreading infection and severe infection. Each of these presentations may be complicated by osteomyelitis. Infection can be caused by Gram-positive aerobic, and Gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, singly or in combination. The underlying principles are to diagnose infection, culture the bacteria responsible and treat aggressively with antibiotic therapy. Localized infections with limited cellulitis can generally be treated with oral antibiotics on an outpatient basis. Spreading infection should be treated with systemic antibiotics. Severe deep infections need urgent admission to hospital for wide-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Clinical and microbiological response rates have been similar in trials of various antibiotics and no single agent or combination has emerged as most effective. Recently, clinical and microbiological outcomes for patients treated with ertapenem were equivalent to those for patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. It is also important to judge the need for debridement and surgery, to assess the arterial supply to the foot and consider revascularization either by angioplasty or bypass if the foot is ischemic. It is also important to achieve metabolic control. Thus infection in the diabetic foot needs full multidisciplinary treatment.