Predictors for limb loss among patient with diabetic foot infections: an observational retrospective multicentric study in Turkey.

We aimed to investigate the predictors for limb loss among patients with diabetes who have complicated skin/soft-tissue infections. In this observational study, consecutive patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI) from 17 centres in Turkey, between May 2011 and May 2013 were included. The Turkish DFI Working Group performed the study. Predictors of limb loss were investigated by multivariate analysis. In total, 455 patients with DFI were included. Median age was 61 years, 68% were male, 65% of the patients were hospitalized, 52% of the patients had used antibiotics within the last month, and 121 (27%) had osteomyelitis. Of the 208 microorganisms isolated, 92 (44.2%) were Gram-positive cocci and 114 (54.8%) were Gram-negative rods (GNR). The most common GNR was Pseudomonas; the second was Escherichia coli, with extended spectrum ß-lactamase positivity of 33%. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species were found in 14% (29/208). Amputations were performed in 126/455 (28%) patients, 44/126 (34%) of these were major amputations. In multivariate analysis, significant predictors for limb loss were, male gender (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.04-2.96, p 0.034), duration of diabetes >20 years (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.18-3.11, p 0.008), infected ulcer versus cellulitis (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.11-3.18, p 0.019), history of peripheral vascular disease (OR 2, 95% CI 1.26-3.27, p 0.004), retinopathy (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.25, p 0.012), erythrocyte sedimentation rate >70 mm/hr (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.01-2.68, p 0.05), and infection with GNR (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.08-3.02, p 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that, besides the known risk factors such as male gender, duration of diabetes >20 years, infected ulcers, history of peripheral vascular disease and retinopathy, detection of GNR was a significant predictor of limb loss.

Comparison of tenofovir and entecavir in patients with chronic HBV infection.

BACKGROUND: Sustained suppression of serum HBV DNA levels with nucleos(t)ide analogues is the most important success obtained in the treatment of chronic HBV infection today. Tenofovir and entecavir provide more robust viral suppression. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare tenofovir and entecavir in terms of viral kinetics, side effects and virological response in patients with chronic HBV infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with tenofovir or entecavir were included in this retrospective study. Using survey analysis, we evaluated independent variables reflecting virological response to treatment and determined whether use of tenofovir or entecavir was one of them. We compared the decline in serum HBV DNA levels at the 3rd, 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th months of treatment between two groups. We also compared entecavir and tenofovir in terms of side effect rates. RESULTS: 117 patients [average age: 44 (20-73), 65 males (55.6%), 30 HBeAg positive (25.6%)] were enrolled in the study. Sixty-six patients (56.4%) used tenofovir and 51 (43.6%) patients used entecavir. Virological response was better in patients using tenofovir (Odd's ratio of 1.796 and p = 0.014) and having high fibrosis score (Odd's ratio of 0.182 and p = 0.018). Entecavir was more effective in reducing serum HBV DNA levels at the 3rd month of treatment (serum HBV DNA decline of 4.45 and 3.96 log10 units for entecavir and tenofovir respectively, p = 0.031), but decline rates were similar at other months. There was no difference between patient groups in terms of side effects and discontinuation of treatment due to side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic HBV infection using tenofovir have better virological response than those using entecavir.