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.

Factors contributing to high levothyroxine doses in primary hypothyroidism: an interventional audit of a large community database.

BACKGROUND: While few hypothyroid patients require more than the expected weight-related dose of levothyroxine, the underlying causes of larger-than-expected dosing requirements have not been studied in a single cohort. Our aim was to determine and quantify the multiple factors contributing to high-dose levothyroxine requirements in a cohort of patients with hypothyroidism. METHODS: The Grampian Automated Follow-Up Register (GAFUR) monitors around 17,500 hypothyroid patients. In 2008, 190 (1%) patients took >225 µg of levothyroxine daily. A questionnaire was sent to 174 patients (16 were untraceable) to assess causes and to offer blood tests for endomysial, parietal cell (PCA), and thyroid peroxidase (TPO) autoantibodies. Primary care practices were contacted for medication details. All patients with positive endomysial autoantibodies were referred to a gastroenterologist. Thyroid function tests and levothyroxine doses were re-evaluated in 2011. RESULTS: A total of 125 questionnaires (72%) were returned. Mean levothyroxine dose was 248 µg daily. Twenty-six patients (20.8%) took medication known to interfere with levothyroxine absorption, and 21 patients (16.8%) admitted to compliance issues. Seven patients had positive anti-endomysial antibodies on initial screening, with four being new diagnoses of celiac disease, and PCA were positive in 27 (21.6%) patients. At follow-up in 2011, the mean levothyroxine dose had decreased in patients on interfering medications and in the four new cases of celiac disease. CONCLUSIONS: Causes of patients needing high-dose levothyroxine replacement include poor compliance, medication interference, PCA (as a marker of atrophic/autoimmune gastritis), and celiac disease. Doses can be decreased following advice regarding medication or after management of underlying conditions.