Treatment of musculoskeletal infections of the foot in patients with diabetes

Predictors of Successful Antibiotic Treatment of Osteomyelitis in Diabetic Forefoot Infection

BACKGROUND

Osteomyelitis (OM) associated with diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a growing public health challenge worldwide. Since 2012 the number of patients presenting with DFU per year to our centre has doubled.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate outcomes from outpatient antibiotic therapy (OPAT) in the management of OM in DFU patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of medical notes, radiology, and vascular laboratory reports for all DFU patients with OM treated from April 2016 to April 2020. Variables analyzed included age, gender, site of OM, WIfI Score (Wound Ischaemia and foot Infection Score), probe-to-bone test (PTB), imaging (X-ray/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), co-morbidities (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension (HTN), smoking, ischemic heart disease (IHD), and dyslipidaemia. Outcomes evaluated were healing, recurrent DFU, and freedom from amputation at 12 months.

RESULTS

185 patients were admitted with 264 infected digits (Male 223; Female 41). The mean age was 66 years. Only 168 (63.6%) were fully healed at 12 months. Of the 96 patients who failed to heal, 43 underwent a repeat course of prolonged antibiotics without improvement. Factors associated with treatment failure were PAD, poorly controlled HbA1c and Deep or Extensive Ulcer or Gangrene.

CONCLUSION

Extended outpatient antibiotic therapy (with an inpatient multidisciplinary approach) is an effective treatment for digital OM in DFU with a success rate of 63%. In recurrence, repeating prolonged antibiotics is unlikely to achieve healing. PAD, poorly controlled HbA1c and Deep or Extensive Ulcer or Gangrene are predictors of treatment failure.

Six-week versus twelve-week antibiotic therapy for nonsurgically treated diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a multicenter open-label controlled randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). This study sought to compare the effectiveness of 6 versus 12 weeks of antibiotic therapy in patients with DFO treated nonsurgically (i.e., antibiotics alone).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective randomized trial comparing 6- versus 12-week duration of antibiotic treatment. Remission of osteomyelitis during the monitoring period was defined as complete and persistent (>4 weeks) healing of the wound (if present initially), absence of recurrent infection at the initial site or that of adjacent rays, and no need for surgical bone resection or amputation at the end of a follow-up period of at least 12 months after completion of antibiotic treatment.

RESULTS

Forty patients followed at five French general hospitals were randomized between January 2007 and January 2009, with 20 treated for 6 weeks and 20 treated for 12 weeks with antibiotics. The two groups were comparable for all variables recorded at inclusion in the study. Remission was obtained in 26 (65%) patients, with no significant differences between patients treated for 6 versus 12 weeks (12/20 vs. 14/20, respectively; P = 0.50). We did not identify any significant parameters associated with patient outcome. Fewer patients treated for 6 weeks experienced gastrointestinal adverse events related to antimicrobial therapy compared with patients treated for 12 weeks (respectively, 15 vs. 45%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The present multicenter prospective randomized study provides data suggesting that 6-week duration of antibiotic therapy may be sufficient in patients with DFO for whom nonsurgical treatment is considered.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases the release of neutrophil endothelial progenitor cells from the bone marrow and improves neutrophil functions, which are often impaired in people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of adjunctive G-CSF compared with placebo or no growth factor added to usual care on rates of infection, cure and wound healing in people with diabetes who have a foot infection.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 14 March 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to March Week 1 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013 March 13); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process march 13,2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 28 February 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of adding G-CSF to usual care in people with a diabetic foot infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. We reported risk ratio (RR) or, for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In the case of low or no heterogeneity we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included five eligible trials with a total of 167 patients. The investigators administered various G-CSF preparations, at different doses and for different durations of time. Adding G-CSF did not significantly affect the likelihood of resolution of infection or wound healing, but it was associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of lower extremity surgical interventions (RR 0.38; 95 % CI 0.21 to 0.70), including amputation (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.18 to 0.95). Moreover, providing G-CSF reduced the duration of hospital stay (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -2.27 to -0.53 days), but did not significantly affect the duration of systemic antibiotic therapy (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -1.30 to 0.77 days).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is limited, but suggests that adjunctive G-CSF treatment in people with a diabetic foot infection, including infected ulcers, does not appear to increase the likelihood of resolution of infection or healing of the foot ulcer. However, it does appear to reduce the need for surgical interventions, especially amputations, and the duration of hospitalisation. Clinicians might consider adding G-CSF to the usual treatment of diabetic foot infections, especially in patients with a limb-threatening infection, but it is not clear which patients might benefit.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

G-CSF increases the release of neutrophil endothelial progenitor cells from the bone marrow, and improves neutrophil functions, which are often impaired in people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of adjunctive G-CSF compared with placebo or no growth factor added to usual care on rates of infection, cure and wound healing in people with diabetes who have a foot infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (Searched 16/3/09); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, issue 1 2009); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to March Week 1 2009); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2009 Week 11); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March Week 2 2009); LookSmart's Find Articles (January 1990 to January 2008); conference proceedings and references lists in the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of adding G-CSF to usual care in people with a diabetic foot infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. Relative risk (RR), or for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. In the case of low or no heterogeneity studies were pooled using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included five eligible trials with a total of 167 patients. The investigators administered various G-CSF preparations, at different doses and for different durations of time. Adding G-CSF did not significantly affect the likelihood of resolution of infection or wound healing, but it was associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of lower extremity surgical interventions (RR 0.37; 95 % CI 0.20 to 0.68), including amputation (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.18 to 0.95). Moreover, providing G-CSF reduced the duration of hospital stay (MD, -1.40 days; 95 % CI, -2.27 to -0.53 days), but did not significantly affect the duration of systemic antibiotic therapy (MD, -0.27 days; 95 % CI, -1.30 to 0.77 days).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is limited, but suggests that adjunctive G-CSF treatment in people with a diabetic foot infection, including infected ulcers, does not appear to increase the likelihood of resolution of infection or healing of the foot ulcer. However, it does appear to reduce the need for surgical interventions, especially amputations, and the duration of hospitalisation. Clinicians might consider adding G-CSF to the usual treatment of diabetic foot infections, especially in patients with a limb-threatening infection, but it is not clear which patients might benefit.