Diabetic foot infection: Antibiotic therapy and good practice recommendations

BACKGROUND

Healthcare events related to diabetic foot disease carry a burden of morbidity, mortality and economic cost. Prompt identification of clinical infection with appropriate tissue sampling limits use of broad spectrum empirical antibiotics and improves antibiotic stewardship. Staphylococcus aureus remains the commonest infecting organism and high-dose flucloxacillin remains the empirical antibiotic of choice for antibiotic naïve patients. Barriers to microbe-specific treatment include: adequate tissue sampling, delays in culture results, drug allergies and the emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms which can complicate the choice of targeted antibiotics. Even appropriate antibiotic treatment carries a risk of adverse events including the selection of resistant organisms.

AIMS

Multidisciplinary clinical assessment of a diabetic foot infection is supported by the use of appropriate imaging modalities and deep tissue sampling, both of which are encouraged to enhance sampling accuracy. Narrow-spectrum, high dose, short duration antimicrobial therapy is ideal. Further clarity in these areas would be of benefit to clinicians involved in management of diabetic foot infections.

METHODS

A combination of literature review with expert discussion was used to generate consensus on management of diabetic foot infection, with a specific focus on empirical antimicrobial therapy.

RESULTS

Gram positive organisms represent the commonest pathogens in diabetic foot infection. However there are developing challenges in antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic availability.

DISCUSSION

Recommendations for empirical therapy, including the choice of alternative oral agents and use of outpatient antibiotics would be of benefit to those involved in diabetic foot care.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides advice on empirical antibiotic therapy that may be used as a framework for local guideline development to support clinicians in the management of diabetic foot infection.

Economic features of antibiotic resistance: the case of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

This paper analyses and updates the economic information regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), including information that has been previously reviewed by other authors, and new information, for the purpose of facilitating health management and clinical decisions. The analysed articles reveal great disparity in the economic burden on MRSA patients; this is mainly due to the diversity of the designs of the studies, as well as the variability of the patients and the differences in health care systems. Regarding prophylactic strategies, the studies do not provide conclusive results that could unambiguously orientate health management. The studies addressing treatments noted that linezolid seems to be a cost-effective treatment for MRSA, mostly because it is associated with a shorter length of stay (LOS) in hospital. However, important variables such as antimicrobial susceptibility, infection type and resistance emergence should be included in these analyses before a conclusion is reached regarding which treatment is the best (most efficient). The reviewed studies found that rapid MRSA detection, using molecular techniques, is an efficient technique to control MRSA. As a general conclusion, the management of MRSA infections implicates important economic costs for hospitals, as they result in higher direct costs and longer LOS than those related to methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) patients or MRSA-free patients; there is wide variability in those increased costs, depending on different variables. Moreover, the research reveals a lack of studies on other related topics, such as the economic implications of changes in MRSA epidemiology (community patients and lineages associated with farm animals).

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

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