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

Clinical outcomes in people with diabetes-related foot infections: Analysis from a limb preservation service infection database

BACKGROUND

Diabetes-related foot infections are common and represent a significant clinical challenge. There are scant data about outcomes from large cohorts. The purpose of this study was to report clinical outcomes from a large cohort of people with diabetes-related foot infections.

METHODS

A tertiary referral hospital limb preservation service database was established in 2018, and all new episodes of foot infections were captured prospectively using an electronic database (REDCap). People with foot infections between January 2018 and May 2023, for whom complete data were available on infection episodes, were included. Infection outcomes were compared between skin and soft tissue infections (SST-DFI) and osteomyelitis (OM) using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Data extraction identified 647 complete DFI episodes in 397 patients. The data set was divided into two cohorts identifying each infection episode and its severity as either SST-DFI (N = 326, 50%) or OM (N = 321, 50%). Most infection presentations were classified as being moderate (PEDIS 3 = 327, 51%), with 36% mild (PEDIS 2 = 239) and 13% severe (PEDIS 4 = 81). Infection resolution occurred in 69% (n = 449) of episodes with failure in 31% (n = 198). Infection failures were more common with OM than SST-DFI (OM = 140, 71% vs. SST-DFI = 58, 29%, p < 0.00001). In patients with SST-DFI a greater number of infection failures were observed in the presence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) compared to the patients without PAD (failure occurred in 30% (31/103) of episodes with PAD and 12% (27/223) of episodes without PAD; p < 0.001). In contrast, the number of observed infection failures in OM episodes were similar in patients with and without PAD (failure occurred in 45% (57/128) of episodes with PAD and 55% (83/193) of episodes without PAD; p = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides important epidemiological data on the risk of poor outcomes for DFI and factors associated with poor outcomes in an Australian setting. It highlights the association of PAD and treatment failure, reinforcing the need for early intervention to improve PAD in patients with DFI. Future randomised trials should assess the benefits of revascularisation and surgery in people with DFI and particularly those with OM where outcomes are worse.

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

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

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

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

LncRNA SNHG16 Knockdown Promotes Diabetic Foot Ulcer Wound Healing via Sponging MiR-31-5p

Diabetic foot ulcers are caused by nerve abnormalities and vascular lesions in the distal lower limbs of diabetic patients. However, the causes of diabetic foot ulcers are diverse and the treatment process is complex. Therefore, understanding the pathogenesis of diabetic foot ulcers through lncRNA and formulating effective means are the key to the cure of patients. Tissues were collected from 76 diabetic foot ulcer patients and 50 non-diabetic patients undergoing traumatic amputation. Human dermal fibroblasts (HDFs) were induced by high glucose to obtain diabetic foot ulcer cell model. The lncRNA SNHG16 (SNHG16) and miR-31-5p expression in tissues and cells was detected by real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) and Transwell assays were used to evaluate the biological behavior of the cells, and the association between SNHG16 and miR-31-5p was explored by luciferase reporting assay. SNHG16 was distinctly expressed in diabetic foot ulcer tissue samples, while miR-31-5p was decreased. In vitro cell function assays confirmed that the proliferation level was inhibited in the constructed diabetic foot ulcer cell model (HG group), as was the migration and invasion ability. After transfection with silencing SNHG16, the biological behavior of the cells was promoted. Mechanistically, SNHG16 sponge miR-31-5p regulated disease progression. Recovery experiments revealed that miR-31-5p inhibitor counteracted the effect of silencing SNHG16 on cell viability. SNHG16 knockdown may regulate the biological function of cells by targeting miR-31-5p to promote wound healing and ameliorate the condition of diabetic foot ulcer patients.

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

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