Concordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection

Diabetic Foot Infections in the Emergency Department

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is among the most common diabetic complications requiring hospitalization. Prompt emergency department diagnosis and evidence-based management can prevent eventual amputation and associated disability and mortality. Underlying neuropathy, arterial occlusion, immune dysfunction, and hyperglycemia-associated dehydration and ketoacidosis can all contribute to severity and conspire to make DFI diagnosis and management difficult. Serious complications include osteomyelitis, necrotizing infection, and sepsis. Practice guidelines are designed to assist frontline providers with correct diagnosis, categorization, and treatment decisions. Management generally includes a careful lower extremity examination and plain x-ray, obtaining appropriate tissue cultures, and evidence-based antibiotic selection tailored to severity.

What’s old is new again: Insights into diabetic foot microbiome

Diabetes is a chronic disease that is considered one of the most stubborn global health problems that continues to defy the efforts of scientists and physicians. The prevalence of diabetes in the global population continues to grow to alarming levels year after year, causing an increase in the incidence of diabetes complications and health care costs all over the world. One major complication of diabetes is the high susceptibility to infections especially in the lower limbs due to the immunocompromised state of diabetic patients, which is considered a definitive factor in all cases. Diabetic foot infections continue to be one of the most common infections in diabetic patients that are associated with a high risk of serious complications such as bone infection, limb amputations, and life-threatening systemic infections. In this review, we discussed the circumstances associated with the high risk of infection in diabetic patients as well as some of the most commonly isolated pathogens from diabetic foot infections and the related virulence behavior. In addition, we shed light on the different treatment strategies that aim at eradicating the infection.

An Overview of Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Associated Problems with Special Emphasis on Treatments with Antimicrobials

One of the most significant challenges of diabetes health care is diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). DFUs are more challenging to cure, and this is particularly true for people who already have a compromised immune system. Pathogenic bacteria and fungi are becoming more resistant to antibiotics, so they may be unable to fight microbial infections at the wound site with the antibiotics we have now. This article discusses the dressings, topical antibacterial treatment, medications and debridement techniques used for DFU and provides a deep discussion of DFU and its associated problems. English-language publications on DFU were gathered from many different databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Springer Nature, and Google Scholar. For the treatment of DFU, a multidisciplinary approach involving the use of diagnostic equipment, skills, and experience is required. Preventing amputations starts with patient education and the implementation of new categorization systems. The microbiota involved in DFU can be better understood using novel diagnostic techniques, such as the 16S-ribosomal DNA sequence in bacteria. This could be achieved by using new biological and molecular treatments that have been shown to help prevent infections, to control local inflammation, and to improve the healing process.

Diabetic foot ulcer, antimicrobial remedies and emerging strategies for the treatment

According to the International Diabetes Federation's 2015 study, diabetes affects over 415 million people globally (5 million of whom die each year), and the incidence of diabetes is expected to climb to over 640 million (1 in 10) by 2040. (IDF 2015). Diabetes foot ulcers (DFU) are one of the most significant diabetic health consequences. Antimicrobial treatments, such as dressings, topical therapies, medicines, drugs, debridement procedures, molecular, cellular, and gene therapies, plant extracts, antimicrobial peptides, growth factors, devices, ozone, and energy-based therapies, would be the focus of this study. Scopus, Web of Science, Bentham Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were among the sources used to compile the English-language publications on DFU. DFU treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes the use of proper diagnostic tools, competence, and experience. To prevent amputations, this starts with patient education and the use of new categories to steer treatment. New diagnostic methods, such as the 16S ribosomal DNA sequence in bacteria, should become available to acquire a better knowledge of the microbiota in DFUs. 

Advances in pharmacotherapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis

Introduction: The diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually clinical. Its severity is related to the location and depth of the lesion, and the presence of necrosis or gangrene. The aetiology of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually polymicrobial, and DFO is often associated with chronic or recurring ulceration.Areas covered: We built on the  International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on the management of diabetic foot infection, providing an outline of the current and new concepts in pharmacotherapy in DFO. We assess future strategies in both medical, surgical and combination management of DFO.Expert opinion: Surgical removal of infected bone is considered as the standard treatment, but a medical approach of certain selected situations has now proven efficacy in selected patients. The combination of new modalities in local antibiotic delivery may provide better long-term solutions and more lasting remission and avoid the disadvantages of prolonged systemic antibiotics.

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Phenotypic Detection of MRSA Isolated from Diabetic Foot Infection

Background

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a common and costly complication of diabetes that may be caused by various bacteria with multi-resistant genes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of phenotypic methods for identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with genotypic detection of MRSA-related genes.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, swab samples were collected from patients with DFI from hospitals in Sulaimani/Iraq in April–July 2019. All the samples were processed for microbiological assessment and further MRSA phenotypic and genotypic testing.

Results

A total of 46 swab samples were collected from diabetic foot ulcers of 29 males and 17 females. Most samples (93.5%) showed positive growth, with higher proportions of monomicrobial (23; 53.5%) than mixed-bacterial infections (20; 46.5%) and S. aureus as the predominant pathogen. Conventional methods of MRSA detection, such as cefoxitin disc diffusion, can predict methicillin resistance in 45.8% of the cases. Real-time/conventional PCR showed that 41.6% of Staphylococcus aureus were positive for the mecA gene, while none of the isolates was positive for PVL.

Conclusion

Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant pathogen in DFI. Although cefoxitin and oxacillin disc diffusion methods can help in the prediction of MRSA, real-time PCR is a reliable method for MRSA detection and confirmation.

Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Current Advances in Antimicrobial Therapies and Emerging Treatments

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are very important diabetes-related lesions that can lead to serious physical consequences like amputations of limbs and equally severe social, psychological, and economic outcomes. It is reported that up to 25% of patients with diabetes develop a DFU in their lifetime, and more than half of them become infected. Therefore, it is essential to manage infection and ulcer recovery to prevent negatives outcomes. The available information plays a significant role in keeping both physicians and patients aware of the emerging therapies against DFUs. The purpose of this review is to compile the currently available approaches in the managing and treatment of DFUs, including molecular and regenerative medicine, antimicrobial and energy-based therapies, and the use of plant extracts, antimicrobial peptides, growth factors, ozone, devices, and nano-medicine, to offer an overview of the assessment of this condition.

Diabetic Foot Infections: Update on Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are common in patients with diabetes mellitus complicated by foot ulcers and can be classified in different categories based on their severity. In this report, we present the diagnosis and management of DFIs according to their classification.

RECENT FINDINGS

While appropriate antibiotic regiments and surgical techniques for the treatment of DFIs are well established, new technologies and techniques for example in medical imaging, wound care modalities, and supplementary therapy approaches show potentially promising results in preventing DFIs. As with every complex disease, fine tuning DFI management can be challenging as it requires careful evaluation of different parameters. It demands timely action, close collaboration of different specialties, and patient cooperation.

Concordance in diabetic foot ulceration: a cross-sectional study of agreement between wound swabbing and tissue sampling in infected ulcers

BACKGROUND

There is inadequate evidence to advise clinicians on the relative merits of swabbing versus tissue sampling of infected diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples from the same ulcer; (2) whether or not differences in bacterial profiles from swabs and tissue samples are clinically relevant; (3) concordance between results from conventional culture versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR); and (4) prognosis for patients with an infected DFU at 12 months' follow-up.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, multicentre study involving patients with diabetes and a foot ulcer that was deemed to be infected by their clinician. Microbiology specimens for culture were taken contemporaneously by swab and by tissue sampling from the same wound. In a substudy, specimens were also processed by PCR. A virtual 'blinded' clinical review compared the appropriateness of patients' initial antibiotic regimens based on the results of swab and tissue specimens. Patients' case notes were reviewed at 12 months to assess prognosis.

RESULTS

The main study recruited 400 patients, with 247 patients in the clinical review. There were 12 patients in the PCR study and 299 patients in the prognosis study. Patients' median age was 63 years (range 26-99 years), their diabetes duration was 15 years (range 2 weeks-57 years), and their index ulcer duration was 1.8 months (range 3 days-12 years). Half of the ulcers were neuropathic and the remainder were ischaemic/neuroischaemic. Tissue results reported more than one pathogen in significantly more specimens than swabs {86.1% vs. 70.1% of patients, 15.9% difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.8% to 20.1%], McNemar's p-value < 0.0001}. The two sampling techniques reported a difference in the identity of pathogens for 58% of patients. The number of pathogens differed in 50.4% of patients. In the clinical review study, clinicians agreed on the need for a change in therapy for 73.3% of patients (considering swab and tissue results separately), but significantly more tissue than swab samples required a change in therapy. Compared with traditional culture, the PCR technique reported additional pathogens for both swab and tissue samples in six (50%) patients and reported the same pathogens in four (33.3%) patients and different pathogens in two (16.7%) patients. The estimated healing rate was 44.5% (95% CI 38.9% to 50.1%). At 12 months post sampling, 45 (15.1%) patients had died, 52 (17.4%) patients had a lower-extremity ipsilateral amputation and 18 (6.0%) patients had revascularisation surgery.

LIMITATIONS

We did not investigate the potential impact of microbiological information on care. We cannot determine if the improved information yield from tissue sampling is attributable to sample collection, sample handling, processing or reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue sampling reported both more pathogens and more organisms overall than swabbing. Both techniques missed some organisms, with tissue sampling missing fewer than swabbing. Results from tissue sampling more frequently led to a (virtual) recommended change in therapy. Long-term prognosis for patients with an infected foot ulcer was poor.

FUTURE WORK

Research is needed to determine the effect of sampling/processing techniques on clinical outcomes and antibiotic stewardship.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

CODIFI (Concordance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infection): a cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers in England

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU).

DESIGN

Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England.

PARTICIPANTS

Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

clinically inappropriate to take either sample.

INTERVENTIONS

Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs.

RESULTS

400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN52608451.

Bacteriological Profile of Diabetic Foot Ulcer with Special Reference to Drug-resistant Strains in a Tertiary Care Center in North-East India

AIM

This study was carried out to determine the bacteriological profile of infected diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and the antibiotic resistance pattern from the isolates. An attempt was made to suggest an empiric antibiotic regimen to treat such patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tissue samples were collected from 150 patients between February 2015 and January 2016 with DFUs under aseptic precautions and they were processed as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 185 bacterial isolates were obtained from 150 persons with diabetic and with foot ulcers. The age group of these persons ranged from 35 to 80 years and the maximum number of persons with DFUs was in the age group of 60-65 years. Among the isolates, Gram-negative bacilli were isolated in 112/185 (61%) and Gram-positive cocci in 73/185 (39%) cases. The most common isolate was Staphylococcus spp. 46 (25%), followed by Escherichia coli (20%) and Enterococcus spp. (15%). The antibiotic sensitivity profile of the bacteria was also studied. Among the isolates, 59/112 (53%) of the Gram-negative bacilli were extended spectrum beta-lactamase producers, 19/46 (41%) were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and 5/27 (19%) were vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a preponderance of multidrug-resistant strains among the isolates from the DFUs. Knowledge on the antibiotic sensitivity pattern of the isolates will be helpful in determining the drugs for the empirical treatment of diabetic ulcers. Thus, indiscriminate use of antibiotics and chances of subsequent development of antibiotic resistance can also be reduced.

Deep tissue biopsy vs. superficial swab culture, including microbial loading determination, in the microbiological assessment of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections (SSTIs)

Thirty-two patients affected by SSTIs including DFIs were enrolled between 2013 and 2014. Superficial swab was obtained before and after cleansing with sterile saline, and after ultrasonic debridement; deep tissue biopsy was obtained from ulcer base. Samples were diluted with 1 mL of saline, serial 10-fold dilutions to 10^-6 were made and 50 μL of each dilution was plated onto appropriate media. Bacteria were identified by Vitek II system. Microbial load was expressed as CFU/mL. Statistical analysis was performed by χ2. Incidence of Gram positives was higher than Gram negatives (S. aureus and P. aeruginosa being the most frequent); concordance (same bacteria isolated before and after debridement) never exceeded 60%. Ultrasonic debridement significantly reduced bacterial load or even suppressed bacterial growth. While reliability of superficial swab is poor for microbiological diagnosis of SSTIs, swabbing after ultrasonic debridement and biopsy of the ulcer base may be equally reliable.

Pitfalls in diagnosing diabetic foot infections

Although the diagnosis of a diabetic foot infection is made based on clinical symptoms and signs, we also use blood laboratory, microbiological and radiological studies to make treatment decisions. All of these diagnostic studies have pitfalls that can lead to a delay in diagnosis. Such delays will likely lead to further tissue damage and to a higher chance of amputation. One of these pitfalls is that some clinicians rely on microbiological, rather than clinical data, to diagnose infection. Though subjective by nature, clinical signs predict outcome of foot infections accurately. Another pitfall is that microbiological data can be misleading. All wounds harbour microorganisms; therefore, a positive wound culture does not mean that a wound is infected. Furthermore, the outcome of cultures of wound swabs does not correlate well with culture results of tissue biopsies. Therapy guidance by wound swab will likely lead to overtreatment of non-pathogenic organisms. Genotyping might have a role in identifying previously unrecognized (combinations of) pathogens in diabetic foot infection, bacteria in sessile phenotype and non-culturable pathogens, e.g. in cases where antibiotics have already been administered. One more pitfall is that the diagnosis of osteomyelitis remains difficult. Although the result of percutaneous bone biopsy is the reference standard for osteomyelitis, some other diagnostic modalities can aid in the diagnosis. A combination of several of these diagnostic tests is probably a good strategy to achieve a higher diagnostic accuracy. Relying on a single test will likely lead to misidentification of patients with osteomyelitis with associated overtreatment and undertreatment.

A Comparison of Tissue versus Swab Culturing of Infected Diabetic Foot Wounds

Objective. To compare the efficacy of swabbing versus tissue biopsy for microbiological diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. Methods. This was a prospective trial. Fifty-six patients with diabetic foot infection were divided into the following 3 groups according to the PEDIS grading system: grade 2 (n = 10), grade 3 (n = 29), and grade 4 (n = 17). Two specimens were collected from each wound for microbial culturing after debridement, including a superficial swab and a deep tissue punch biopsy specimen. Results. Swab culturing identified all of the microorganisms isolated from the corresponding deep tissue specimens in 9/10 of grade 2 wounds (90.0%), and this proportion decreased to 12/29 (41.4%) and 7/17 (41.2%) for grades 3 and 4 wounds, respectively (p = 0.02). Moreover, the sensitivity for identifying Gram-negative bacteria, such as E. coli and Citrobacter, by swabbing was low (33.3%). In addition, some Gram-negative bacteria, such as Serratia and Ralstonia pickettii, were isolated from deep tissues but not from swabs. Conclusions. Swab culturing may be reliable for identification of pathogens in diabetic foot wounds classified as grade 2. However, it is advisable to culture deep tissue specimens for wounds of grade ≥3 because swab culturing is associated with a high risk of missing pathogens, especially Gram-negative bacteria.

Videoconferencing for site initiations in clinical studies: Mixed methods evaluation of usability, acceptability, and impact on recruitment

BACKGROUND

A critical issue for multicentre clinical studies is conducting site initiations, ensuring sites are trained in study procedures and comply with relevant governance requirements before they begin recruiting patients. How technology can support site initiations has not previously been explored.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate use of off-the-shelf web-based videoconferencing to deliver site initiations for a large national multicentre study.

METHODS

Participants in the initiations, including podiatrists, diabetologists, trial coordinators, and research nurses, completed an online questionnaire based on the System Usability Scale (SUS) (N = 15). This was followed by semi-structured interviews, with a consultant diabetologist, a trial coordinator, and three research nurses, exploring perceived benefits and limitations of videoconferencing.

RESULTS

The mean SUS score for the videoconferencing platform was 87.2 (SD = 13.7), suggesting a good level of usability. Interview participants perceived initiations delivered by videoconferencing as being more interactive and easier to follow than those delivered by teleconference. In comparison to face-to-face initiations, videoconferencing takes less time, easily fitting in with the work of staff at the local sites. Perceptions of impact on communication varied according to the hardware used.

CONCLUSION

Off-the-shelf videoconferencing is a viable alternative to face-to-face site initiations and confers advantages over teleconferencing.

Novel negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and the management of diabetic foot infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi) in complex or difficult-to-treat acute and chronic wounds has expanded rapidly since the introduction of commercially available NPWTi systems. We summarize the evidence related to NPWTi and particularly focus on the application of this technology in diabetic foot ulcers, diabetic foot infections and postoperative diabetic wounds.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are well documented in the treatment of complex acute and chronic wounds, including noninfected postoperative diabetic wounds and diabetic foot ulcers. Combining intermittent wound irrigation with NPWT may offer additional benefits compared to NPWT alone, including further reduction of wound bed bioburden, increased granulation tissue formation and provision of wound irrigation in a sealed environment, thus preventing potential cross-contamination events. Recently, available evidence suggests that adjunctive NPWTi may be superior to standard NPWT in the management of diabetic infections following surgical debridement and may promote granulation tissue formation in slow-to-heal wounds.

SUMMARY

Available evidence relating to the utilization of NPWTi in diabetic foot infections is promising but limited in quality, being derived mostly from case series or small retrospective or prospective studies. In order to confirm or refute the potential benefits of NPWTi in this patient cohort, well designed randomized controlled studies are required that compare NPWTi to NPWT or standard wound care methodologies.

Challenges in diagnosing infection in the diabetic foot

Diagnosing the presence of infection in the foot of a patient with diabetes can sometimes be a difficult task. Because open wounds are always colonized with microorganisms, most agree that infection should be diagnosed by the presence of systemic or local signs of inflammation. Determining whether or not infection is present in bone can be especially difficult. Diagnosis begins with a history and physical examination in which both classic and 'secondary' findings suggesting invasion of microorganisms or a host response are sought. Serological tests may be helpful, especially measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate in osteomyelitis, but all (including bone biomarkers and procalcitonin) are relatively non-specific. Cultures of properly obtained soft tissue and bone specimens can diagnose and define the causative pathogens in diabetic foot infections. Newer molecular microbial techniques, which may not only identify more organisms but also virulence factors and antibiotic resistance, look very promising. Imaging tests generally begin with plain X-rays; when these are inconclusive or when more detail of bone or soft tissue abnormalities is required, more advanced studies are needed. Among these, magnetic resonance imaging is generally superior to standard radionuclide studies, but newer hybrid imaging techniques (single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography, positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging) look to be useful techniques, and new radiopharmaceuticals are on the horizon. In some cases, ultrasonography, photographic and thermographic methods may also be diagnostically useful. Improved methods developed and tested over the past decade have clearly increased our accuracy in diagnosing diabetic foot infections.

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.