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
The aim of this study was to validate a Dutch translation of the Cardiff wound impact schedule (CWIS), a disease-specific instrument to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in... Show moreThe aim of this study was to validate a Dutch translation of the Cardiff wound impact schedule (CWIS), a disease-specific instrument to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic leg ulcers. To achieve this, the original instrument was translated. A total of 83 patients with chronic lower leg ulcers were included and completed the translated instrument and SF36 at baseline after assessment of their wound severity. Follow-up was performed 1 week after inclusion. The psychometric properties of the instrument were assessed. Construct validity was positively evaluated by an expert panel. Face validity was positively evaluated in a cognitive debriefing of a pilot group. Discriminant validity was assessed by correlating 1-year amputation risk according to the Wound, Ischaemia, foot Infection classification system with the instrument scores. Significant correlation could not be proven. Criterion validity was assessed by correlating domain scores of the instrument with domain scores of the gold standard: SF36. Moderate to high correlation was calculated for most domains of the instrument. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were evaluated as acceptable. In conclusion, the Dutch translation of the CWIS is a valid and reliable disease-specific instrument to assess the HRQoL in patients with chronic lower leg ulcers. Show less
