Management of infected diabetic wound: a scoping review of guidelines.

Background: Various international guidelines and recommendations are available for management of diabetic foot infections. We present a review of the guidelines and recommendations for management of these infections. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, DARE, and national health bodies. Based on the review of fifteen documents, we present details on the importance of suspecting and diagnosing skin, superficial infections, and bone infections in diabetics. Results: The guidelines recommend classifying the infections based on severity to guide the treatment. While antibiotics have shown the best results, other treatments like hyperbaric oxygen therapy and negative wound pressure have been debated. It is suggested that a team of specialists should be in-charge of managing the infected wounds. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2012 guidelines are widely followed world-over. All guidelines and reviews have consistent suggestions on the assessment of the severity of infection, diagnosis, start, selection, and duration of antibiotic therapy. Conclusions: It is reasonable to conclude that the IDSA 2012 guidelines are commonly followed across the world. There is a consensus among the Australian guidelines, Canadian guidelines, IDSA 2012, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2015, and International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) 2016 guidelines on the management of infected wounds for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Diabetic foot infection is a common diabetic complication that may end in lower limb amputation if not treated properly. We performed this systematic review to assess the clinical efficacy of different antibiotic regimens, whether systemic or topical, in the treatment of moderate to severe diabetic foot infections. We searched Medline, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of antibiotic regimens in moderate to severe diabetic foot infections. The primary outcome of interest was the clinical efficacy (cure/improvement rates) of the regimens. We included 16 trials (4,158 patients) in this review, from which we extracted 10 comparisons: some trials compared systemic antibiotics to each other, others compared systemic to topical agents, while one study compared the combined topical and systemic agents to systemic antibiotics alone. Qualitative analysis of the findings of these studies showed that: (1) pipracillin/tazobactam was superior to ertapenem in severe infections (clinical resolution rate: 91.5% compared with PIP/TAZ 97.2%, p ≤ 0.04), but had similar efficacy in moderate infections, (2) ertapenem was more effective than tigecycline in moderate to severe infections (absolute difference -5.5, [95% CI -11.0, 0.1]), (3) the adjuvant use of topical agents with systemic antibiotics improved the outcomes, compared with systemic antibiotics alone (p = 0.024), (4) the rates of recurrence and re-ulceration were significantly lower in patients using the amino-penicillin regimen, compared with those using oral/intravenous ofloxacin, and (5) lower rates of complications accompanied the imipenem/cilastatin regimen, compared with the pipracillin/tazobactam regimen (p = 0.13). In conclusion, data from the included studies showed better results for ertapenem when compared with tigecycline; however, it was inferior to pipracillin/tazobactam in severe infections. The adjuvant use of topical agents improves the efficacy of systemic antibiotics in diabetic foot infection.