Parenteral Vancomycin in the Treatment of MRSA-Associated Diabetic Foot Infections: An Unnecessary Risk.

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a common and costly complication of diabetes. Soft tissue and bone infections in DFIs frequently lead to amputation and/or sepsis which can be costly for both the patient and the healthcare system. Staphylococcus aureus is the most commonly identified causative agent in DFIs, and people with diabetes may have an increased risk of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition to increased susceptibility to severe infection, MRSA in DFIs is associated with high rates of treatment failure, morbidity, and hospitalization costs meaning appropriate treatment is a high priority. While hospitalized patients are usually treated with intravenous (IV) vancomycin, this can be costly in terms of inpatient stays, staffing costs, and adverse events. For example, vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury not only delays hospital discharge and increases costs but is also a particular concern for patients with diabetes who already have an increased risk of kidney problems. Vancomycin-resistant strains of S. aureus have also been identified, which means that alternative treatment options may need to be explored. Treatment alternatives to IV vancomycin, including oral antibiotics, have been shown to provide similar efficacy, with reduced costs, outpatient or home-based administration, and with fewer serious adverse effects. Although infectious disease specialists often use IV vancomycin alone, or in combination, as a first-line therapeutic option, they are increasingly seeing the value of outpatient or at-home oral antibiotics as an alternative. This manuscript reviews the evidence for true costs of vancomycin therapy for MRSA-associated DFIs and examines the alternatives.

Current medical management of diabetic foot infections.

Foot infections are a serious complication of diabetes associated with substantial morbidity and occasional mortality. Antibiotic therapy for mild infections in patients who have not recently received antibiotic therapy can often be directed at just staphylococci and streptococci. Empiric therapy for infections that are chronic, moderate or severe, or that occur in patients who have failed previous antibiotic treatment, should usually be more broad spectrum. Bone infection also complicates a substantial percentage of diabetic foot wounds and increases the likelihood of treatment failure, requiring lower extremity amputation. An increasing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of nonsurgical treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis in selected patients, although the optimal choice of agent, route of administration and duration of therapy have yet to be defined. This article examines the potential role of standard and newer antibiotics that may be appropriate for treating diabetic foot infections, including ertapenem, vancomycin, moxifloxacin, daptomycin, telavancin and tigecycline, as well as several investigational agents, such as dalbavancin, ceftobiprole and nemonoxacin.

Update on the treatment of diabetic foot infections.

This article brings the practicing clinician up to date on the current concepts regarding the medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Topics include a review of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections and a discussion of newer antibiotics such as linezolid, ertapenem, moxifloxacin, dalbavancin, tigecycline, ceftobiprole and iclaprim.