Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potential mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2022, we searched the literature using PubMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection (DFI). On the basis of pre-determined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as non-controlled, studies in English. We then developed evidence statements based on the included papers. RESULTS: We selected a total of 64 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The certainty of the majority of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot/Infectious Diseases Society of America scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of the need for hospitalisation, lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue infection. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Although non-culture techniques, especially next-generation sequencing, are likely to identify more bacteria from tissue samples including bone than standard cultures, no studies have established a significant impact on the management of patients with DFIs. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the combination of a positive probe-to-bone test and elevated ESR supports this diagnosis. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but advanced imaging methods including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging when MRI is not feasible help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localisation of infection is uncertain. Intra-operative or non-per-wound percutaneous biopsy is the best method to accurately identify bone pathogens in case of a suspicion of a DFO. Bedside percutaneous biopsies are effective and safe and are an option to obtain bone culture data when conventional (i.e. surgical or radiological) procedures are not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is still a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Evaluation of the Genmark ePlex® and QIAstat-Dx® respiratory pathogen panels in detecting bacterial targets in lower respiratory tract specimens.

BACKGROUND: The ePlex® and QIAstat-Dx® respiratory pathogen panels detect multiple respiratory pathogens, mainly viruses but also Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Bordetella pertussis. The assays have been marketed for use in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. For diagnosing bacterial pneumonia, lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens are indicated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of these syndromic panels for these three bacterial targets in samples from the LRT. Fifty-six specimens were collected from our repositories, five negative samples and fifty-one samples which had been previously tested positive with the routine diagnostic real-time PCR assays for Legionella spp. (N = 20), Bordetella spp. (N = 16) or M. pneumoniae (N = 15). RESULTS: The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel V2 (RP) assay detected all of the L. pneumophila and B. pertussis positive samples but only 11/15 (73.3 %) of the M. pneumoniae targets. The ePlex Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) assay detected 10/14 (71.4 %) of the L. pneumophila targets, 8/12 (66.7 %) of the B. pertussis positive samples and 13/15 (86.7 %) of the M. pneumoniae targets. CONCLUSIONS: No false-positive results were reported for all three bacterial pathogens by both assays. The clinical performance of both assays depended highly on the bacterial load in the sample and the type of specimen under investigation.

Clinical implications of bile cultures obtained during pancreatoduodenectomy: a cohort study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between intraoperative bile cultures and infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy remains unclear. This cohort study and meta-analysis aimed to determine the predictive role of intraoperative bile cultures in abdominal infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: The cohort study included 114 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Regression analyses were used to estimate the odds to develop an organ space infection (OSI) or isolated OSI (OSIs without a simultaneous complication potentially contaminating the intraabdominal space) after a positive bile culture. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on abdominal infectious complications (Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model). RESULTS: The positive bile culture rate was 61%, predominantly in patients after preoperative biliary drainage (98% vs 26%, p < 0.001). OSIs occurred in 35 patients (31%) and isolated OSIs in nine patients (8%) and were not associated with positive bile cultures (OSIs: odds ratio = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.25-1.23, isolated OSIs: odds ratio = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.20-3.04). In the meta-analysis, 15 studies reporting on 2047 patients showed no association between positive bile cultures and abdominal infectious complications (pooled odds ratio = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.98-1.65). CONCLUSION: Given the rare occurrence of isolated OSIs and similar odds for patients with positive and negative bile cultures to develop abdominal infectious complications, routine performance of bile cultures should be reconsidered.

[Emergence of amatoxin poisoning in the Netherlands]. / De giftige groene knolamaniet.

CASE DESCRIPTION: A 34-year-old woman from Thai origin developed acute liver failure after ingestion of a soup which contained the death cap (Amanita phalloides). BACKGROUND: In patients with poisoning due to amatoxin-containing mushrooms, gastro-intestinal complaints usually develop several hours after ingestion, followed by acute hepatic failure which occasionally leads to death. The incidence of reported mushroom poisonings in the Netherlands has increased in 2019, which is possibly associated with migration of asylum seekers who regularly pick and eat mushrooms. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands mushroom intoxication is rare. Therefore, there is a lack of knowledge among health care personnel and foragers. The present case report highlights the importance of awareness of the poisonous death cap to prevent intoxications and optimize treatment decisions.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. RESULTS: From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe-to-bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain. CONCLUSION: The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

Bone involvement during an infection of the diabetic foot represents a serious complication associated with a high risk of amputation, prolonged antibiotic treatment and hospitalization. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFOs) require a multidisciplinary approach given the usual complexity of these situations. DFO should be suspected in most cases especially in the most severe forms of soft tissue diabetic foot infections (DFIs) where the prevalence of bone infection may be up to 60%. Suspicion is based on clinical signs in particular a positive probe-to-bone (PTB) test, elevated inflammatory biomarkers especially erythrocyte sedimentation rate and abnormal imaging assessment using plain X-ray as a first-line choice. The combination of PTB test with plain X-ray has proven effective in the diagnosis of DFO. The confirmation (definite) diagnosis of DFO is based on the results of a bone sample examination obtained by either surgical or percutaneous biopsy. Sophisticated imaging examinations such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging techniques are useful where doubt persists after first-line imaging assessment. These techniques may also help localize the bone infection site and increase the diagnostic performance of percutaneous bone biopsy. The quality of the microbiological documentation of DFO is likely to improve the adequacy of the antimicrobial therapy especially when medical (ie, no surgical resection of the infected bone tissues) is considered. The use of new (molecular) techniques for the identification of the bone pathogens have not yet proven superiority on classic cultural techniques for the management of such patients.

Complications during the treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

AIM: To identify complications of medical treatment in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). METHODS: We reviewed 143 records of consecutive patients admitted with DFO, confirmed by bone histopathology or culture. Complications monitored included acute kidney injuries (AKI), development of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), gastrointestinal complications, and venous catheter related complications during a 12months follow-up period. RESULTS: Forty-seven AKI episodes were reported during follow-up; half occurred during the first hospitalization with involvement of antimicrobial therapy in 14 events (29.8%). Patients with AKI were more likely to have recurrent ulcerations (69.2% vs. 45.2%, p=0.02), recurrent infections (38.5% vs. 17.3%, p=0.01), and recurrent hospitalizations (43.6% vs. 28.8%, p=0.02) during follow-up. Only 14 MRSA isolates were found in bone samples at baseline (9.8%). Resistant strains of MRSA and VRE were identified in twenty-one patients (14.7%) during follow-up. Patients re-hospitalized for infection were more likely to have resistant bacterial strains (52.6% vs. 25.8%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the rates of VRE and MRSA in bone biopsies of patients with DFO were lower than in previous reports. Acute kidney injury occurred frequently in our patient population but might not be associated with antibiotic exposure.

Update on the Role of Infection and Biofilms in Wound Healing: Pathophysiology and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds, and among these infected diabetic foot ulcers, are a worldwide problem. The poor treatment outcomes result in high healthcare costs, amputations, a decreased quality of life, and an increased mortality. These outcomes are influenced by several factors, including biofilm formation. A biofilm consists of pathogenic bacteria that are encased in an exopolysaccharide layer and communicate through secretion of signaling molecules. Bacteria that live in a biofilm are refractory to host responses and treatment. METHODS: We performed a nonsystematic review of the currently published to-date medical biofilm literature. The review summarizes the evidence of biofilm in chronic wounds, the role of biofilm in wound healing, detection of biofilm, and available antibiofilm treatments. Articles containing basic science and clinical research, as well as systematic reviews, are described and evaluated. The articles have variable levels of evidence. All articles have been peer reviewed and meet the standards of evidence-based medicine. RESULTS: Both animal and human studies have identified biofilm in chronic wounds and have suggested that healing might be influenced by its presence. A promising development in biofilm detection is rapid molecular diagnostics combined with direct microscopy. This technique, rather than classic culture, might support individualized treatment in the near future. A wide range of treatments for chronic wounds also influence biofilm formation. Several agents that specifically target biofilm are currently being researched. CONCLUSIONS: Biofilm formation has a substantial role in chronic wounds. Several diagnostic and therapeutic methods against biofilm are currently being developed.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Probe to Bone to Detect Osteomyelitis in the Diabetic Foot: A Systematic Review.

The probe-to-bone (PTB) test is a commonly used clinical test for osteomyelitis (OM), but its utility has been questioned in clinical settings where the prevalence of OM is low. This article aims to systematically review the accuracy of the PTB test to diagnose diabetic foot OM. We searched Ovid Medline and Scopus databases for studies using the keywords "probe to bone," "osteomyelitis," and "diabetic foot" from 1946 to May 2015. We summarized characteristics of the included studies and pooled the accuracy numbers using a bivariate random-effects model. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the PTB test was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], .75-.93) and 0.83 (95% CI, .65-.93), respectively. We conclude that the PTB test can accurately rule in diabetic foot OM in the high-risk patients and rule out OM in low-risk patients.