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... Show moreThe 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. Show less
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... Show moreThe 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. Show less
Background: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and... Show moreBackground: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potential mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment.Methods: In June 2022, we searched the literature using PubMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection (DFI). On the basis of pre-determined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as non-controlled, studies in English. We then developed evidence statements based on the included papers.Results: We selected a total of 64 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The certainty of the majority of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot/Infectious Diseases Society of America scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of the need for hospitalisation, lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue infection. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Although non-culture techniques, especially next-generation sequencing, are likely to identify more bacteria from tissue samples including bone than standard cultures, no studies have established a significant impact on the management of patients with DFIs. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the combination of a positive probe-to-bone test and elevated ESR supports this diagnosis. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but advanced imaging methods including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging when MRI is not feasible help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localisation of infection is uncertain. Intra-operative or non-per-wound percutaneous biopsy is the best method to accurately identify bone pathogens in case of a suspicion of a DFO. Bedside percutaneous biopsies are effective and safe and are an option to obtain bone culture data when conventional (i.e. surgical or radiological) procedures are not feasible.Conclusions: The results of this systematic review of the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is still a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality. Show less
The treatment of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI) with debridement, antibiotics, and retention of the implant (DAIR) often results in failure. An important evidence gap concerns the... Show moreThe treatment of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI) with debridement, antibiotics, and retention of the implant (DAIR) often results in failure. An important evidence gap concerns the treatment with rifampicin for PJI. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the outcome of staphylococcal hip and/or knee PJI after DAIR, focused on the role of rifampicin. Studies published until September 2, 2020 were included. Success rates were stratified for type of joint and type of micro-organism. Sixty-four studies were included. The pooled risk ratio for rifampicin effectiveness was 1.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.22). The pooled success rate was 69% for Staphylococcus aureus hip PJI, 54% for S aureus knee PJI, 83% for coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) hip PJI, and 73% for CNS knee PJI. Success rates for MRSA PJI (58%) were similar to MSSA PJI (60%). The metaanalysis indicates that rifampicin may only prevent a small fraction of all treatment failures. Show less
