Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Diabetes-related foot infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality, both globally and in Australia. There is a need for up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to ensure optimal management of patients with diabetes-related foot infections. We aimed to identify and adapt high quality international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guideline for people with a diabetes-related foot infection. Methods Following Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures we identified the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines as suitable for adaptation to the Australian context. Guidelines were screened, assessed and judged by an expert panel for the Australian context using the guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Judgements led to recommendations being adopted, adapted or excluded, with additional consideration regarding their implementation, monitoring and future research for the Australian context. Clinical pathways were then developed to assist implementation. Results Of 36 original diabetes-related foot infection IWGDF sub-recommendations, 31 were adopted, four were adapted and one was excluded. Adaption was primarily undertaken due to differences or clarification of the sub-recommendations’ intended population. One sub-recommendation was excluded due to substantial differences in judgements between the panel and IWGDF and unacceptable heterogeneity of the target population. Therefore, we developed 35 evidence-based sub-recommendations for the Australian context that should guide best practice diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infection in Australia. Additionally, we incorporated these sub-recommendations into two clinical pathways to assist Australian health professionals to implement these evidence-based sub-recommendations into clinical practice. The six guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ . Conclusions A new national guideline for the diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infections were successfully developed for the Australian context. In combination with simplified clinical pathway tools they provide an evidence-based framework to ensure best management of individuals with diabetes-related foot infections across Australia and highlight considerations for implementation and monitoring.

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) represents a growing public health problem in Africa, caused by several microorganisms, with being one of the most prevalent pathogens associated with subsequent complications. This study aimed to characterize isolated from the wounds of patients with type 2 diabetes, treated at a health center in Beira, Mozambique, in terms of antibiotic resistance and virulence genes. Samples were collected by swab, after ulcer debridement, and cultivated onto mannitol salt Columbia agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood, for 24 to 48 h, at 37°C. The antibiotic resistance was assessed by disk diffusion on Mueller-Hinton agar, and Multiplex PCR was used to screen 32 virulence and seven antibiotic resistance genes. isolates showed high phenotypic resistance to penicillin (100%), cefoxitin (53.3%), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (40%) and vancomycin (22.2%), and a high percentage of multidrug resistance (68.9%). The most prevalent resistance genes were (penicillin, 100%), (cefoxitin, 53.3%) and (vancomycin, 28.9%). The most frequent virulence genes were toxic syndrome staphylococcal toxin, 57.8%), and the colonization factor (37.8%), followed by the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PLV) genes, (26.7%) and (15.6%). The regulator factor coded by (37.8%) and the adhesion factors coded by (20%) and by (17.8%) were also found. A high presence of virulence genes encoding exotoxins and colonization and adhesion factors, associated with a high rate of multidrug resistance, was found in isolates. This anticipates increasing difficulty in treating DFI. The greatest resistance was to commonly used antibiotics, particularly penicillin, cefoxitin and vancomycin, with resistance genes, and , frequently detected. This emphasizes the urgent need for improved antimicrobial stewardship, routine molecular surveillance, and improved management strategies for DFI in resource-limited settings to mitigate disease complications and reduce the burden of antimicrobial resistance.

Background Diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of poorly controlled diabetes and often become infected, termed diabetic foot infection. There have been numerous studies of the microbiology of diabetic foot infection but no meta-analysis has provided a global overview of these data. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of bacteria isolated from diabetic foot infections using studies of any design which reported diabetic foot infection culture results. Methods The Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS electronic databases were searched for studies published up to 2019 which contained microbiological culture results from at least 10 diabetic foot infection patients. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted the data. The main outcome was the prevalence of each bacterial genera or species. Results A total of 112 studies were included, representing 16,159 patients from which 22,198 microbial isolates were obtained. The organism most commonly identified was Staphylococcus aureus , of which 18.0% (95% CI 13.8–22.6%; I 2  = 93.8% [93.0–94.5%]) was MRSA. Other highly prevalent organisms were Pseudomonas spp., E. coli and Enterococcus spp. A correlation was identified between Gross National Income and the prevalence of Gram positive or negative organisms in diabetic foot infections. Conclusion The microbiology of diabetic foot infections is diverse, but S. aureus predominates. The correlation between the prevalence of Gram positive and negative organisms and Gross National Income could reflect differences in healthcare provision and sanitation. This meta-analysis has synthesised multiple datasets to provide a global overview of the microbiology of diabetic foot infections that will help direct the development of novel therapeutics.

ObjectiveTo determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU).DesignMulticentre, prospective, cross-sectional study.SettingPrimary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England.ParticipantsInclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU. Exclusion criteria: clinically inappropriate to take either sample.InterventionsWound swab obtained using Levine’s technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel.Outcome measuresCoprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs.Results400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively).ConclusionReports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples.Trial registration numberISRCTN52608451.

Infection of foot ulcers is a common, often severe and costly complication in diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFI) are mainly polymicrobial, and Staphylococcus aureus is the most frequent pathogen isolated. The numerous virulence factors and toxins produced by S. aureus during an infection are well characterized. However, some particular features could be observed in DFI. The aim of this review is to describe the role of S. aureus in DFI and the implication of its toxins in the establishment of the infection. Studies on this issue have helped to distinguish two S. aureus populations in DFI: toxinogenic S. aureus strains (harboring exfoliatin-, EDIN-, PVL- or TSST-encoding genes) and non-toxinogenic strains. Toxinogenic strains are often present in infections with a more severe grade and systemic impact, whereas non-toxinogenic strains seem to remain localized in deep structures and bone involving diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Testing the virulence profile of bacteria seems to be a promising way to predict the behavior of S. aureus in the chronic wounds.

Foot infections are the main disabling complication in patients with diabetes mellitus. These infections can lead to lower-limb amputation, increasing mortality and decreasing the quality of life. Biofilm formation is an important pathophysiology step in diabetic foot ulcers (DFU)—it plays a main role in the disease progression and chronicity of the lesion, the development of antibiotic resistance, and makes wound healing difficult to treat. The main problem is the difficulty in distinguishing between infection and colonization in DFU. The bacteria present in DFU are organized into functionally equivalent pathogroups that allow for close interactions between the bacteria within the biofilm. Consequently, some bacterial species that alone would be considered non-pathogenic, or incapable of maintaining a chronic infection, could co-aggregate symbiotically in a pathogenic biofilm and act synergistically to cause a chronic infection. In this review, we discuss current knowledge on biofilm formation, its presence in DFU, how the diabetic environment affects biofilm formation and its regulation, and the clinical implications.

•Bacteriophage (phage) are ubiquitous viruses that infect and kill bacteria.•Phage therapy was used in ten diabetic foot infection patients at high risk of amputation.•Phage appeared to support limb salvage in six patients and three patients improved. Infected diabetic foot ulcers can be difficult to treat and, despite appropriate antibiotic therapy, some diabetic foot infections (DFIs) require amputation. Bacteriophages (phages) are viruses that infect and kill bacteria. Phage therapy has been repeatedly used to successfully treat DFIs and other chronic wounds. This article reports the provision of topical adjunctive anti-staphylococcal phage therapy to 10 patients with DFI at high risk of amputation at two UK hospitals as part of clinical care; tolerability and efficacy were clinically assessed. The opinion of the experienced clinical teams caring for these patients was that 9 of the 10 patients appeared to benefit from adjunctive phage therapy. No adverse effects were reported by clinicians or patients. In 6 of 10 patients the clinical impression was that phage therapy facilitated clinical resolution of infection and limb salvage. Resolution of soft tissue infection was observed in a 7th patient but unresolved osteomyelitis required amputation. An 8th patient demonstrated eradication of Staphylococcus aureus from a polymicrobial infection and a 9th showed signs of clinical improvement before early cessation of phage therapy due to an unrelated event. One patient, with a weakly susceptible S aureus isolate, had no significant response. This report describes the largest application of phage therapy in the United Kingdom to date and the first application of phage therapy for DFI in the United Kingdom and offers subjective hints toward impressive tolerability and efficacy. Phage therapy has the potential to transform the prevention and treatment of DFIs.

Diabetic foot infection (DFI) management requires complex multidisciplinary care pathways with off-loading, debridement and targeted antibiotic treatment central to positive clinical outcomes. Local administration of topical treatments and advanced wound dressings are often used for more superficial infections, and in combination with systemic antibiotics for more advanced infections. In practice, the choice of such topical approaches, whether alone or as adjuncts, is rarely evidence-based, and there does not appear to be a single market leader. There are several reasons for this, including a lack of clear evidence-based guidelines on their efficacy and a paucity of robust clinical trials. Nonetheless, with a growing number of people living with diabetes, preventing the progression of chronic foot infections to amputation is critical. Topical agents may increasingly play a role, especially as they have potential to limit the use of systemic antibiotics in an environment of increasing antibiotic resistance. While a number of advanced dressings are currently marketed for DFI, here we review the literature describing promising future-focused approaches for topical treatment of DFI that may overcome some of the current hurdles. Specifically, we focus on antibiotic-impregnated biomaterials, novel antimicrobial peptides and photodynamic therapy.

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is the most frequent infection associated with diabetic foot ulcers, occurs in >20% of moderate infections and 50%-60% of severe infections, and is associated with high rates of amputation. DFO represents a challenge in both diagnosis and therapy, and many consequences of its condition are related to late diagnosis, delayed referral, or ill-indicated treatment. This review aimed to analyze the current evidence on DFO management and to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options. A narrative review of the evidence was begun by searching Medline and PubMed databases for studies using the keywords \"management\", \"diabetic foot\", \"osteomyelitis\", and \"diabetic foot osteomyelitis\" from 2008 to 2018. We found a great variety of studies focusing on both medical and surgical therapies showing a similar rate of effectiveness and outcomes; however, the main factors in choosing one over the other seem to be associated with the presence of soft-tissue infection or ischemia and the clinical presentation of DFO. Further randomized controlled trials with large samples and long-term follow-up are necessary to demonstrate secondary outcomes, such as recurrence, recurrent ulceration, and reinfection associated with both medical and surgical options.

Diabetic foot infection is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower limb amputations worldwide. In addition, diabetes mellitus and sequela of the disease are increasing in prevalence. In 2017, 9.4% of Americans were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). The growing pervasiveness and financial implications of diabetic foot infection (DFI) indicate an acute need for improved clinical assessment and treatment. Complex pathophysiology and suboptimal specificity of current non-invasive imaging modalities have made diagnosis and treatment response challenging. Current anatomical and molecular clinical imaging strategies have mainly targeted the host’s immune responses rather than the unique metabolism of the invading microorganism. Advances in imaging have the potential to reduce the impact of these problems and improve the assessment of DFI, particularly in distinguishing infection of soft tissue alone from osteomyelitis (OM). This review presents a summary of the known pathophysiology of DFI, the molecular basis of current and emerging diagnostic imaging techniques, and the mechanistic links of these imaging techniques to the pathophysiology of diabetic foot infections.