Antibiotic Resistance Profiling and mecA Gene Detection in Diabetic Foot Infections: A Study from Ardabil City, Iran

Foot infections in diabetic patients are a common, complex and costly problem. They are potentially adverse with progression to deeper spaces and tissues and are associated with severe complications. The management of diabetic foot infection (DFI) requires a prompt and systematic approach to achieve more successful outcomes and to ultimately avoid amputations. This study reviews a multi-step treatment for DFIs. Between September 2010 and September 2012, a total of about 37 patients were consulted for DFI. The treatment algorithm included four steps, that is, several types of debridement according to the type of wound, the application of negative pressure therapy (NPT), other advanced dressings, a targeted antibiotic therapy local or systemic as the case may, and, if necessary, reconstructive surgery. This treatment protocol showed excellent outcomes, allowing us to avoid amputation in most difficult cases. Only about 8% of patients require amputation. This treatment protocol and a multidisciplinary approach with a specialised team produced excellent results in the treatment of DFI and in the management of diabetic foot in general, allowing us to improve the quality of life of diabetic patients and also to ensure cost savings.

Foot infections are the most common complications in diabetic patients and common cause of morbidity and mortality. They require prompt diagnosis and involvement of a multidisciplinary team in their treatment. Prospective study to define the etiology of the deep diabetic foot infections and its specific characteristics concerning the adequate empiric antimicrobial therapy was done. The study included 50 patients, who underwent minor amputations due to moderate to severe infection of the foot. All specimens for microbiology testing were taken by biopsy or aspiration during surgery. Specimens cultivation, identification of the isolated microorganisms and their susceptibility towards antimicrobial agents were performed by conventional methods and automated systems. Diabetic foot infections were predominantly polymicrobial; 42 (84%) of the cases, caused by associations between two, three and four different pathogens. Mixed infections caused by aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were found in 17 patients (34%). Gram-positive bacteria were the prominent microbial pathogens in both monobacterial and polymicrobial infection; mostly Streptococcus agalactiae and Staphylococcus aureus. Gram-negative aerobic bacteria presented 33.3% of all isolated bacteria, predominantly members of Enterobacteriaceae family. Obligate anaerobes represents 16.66% of all isolated bacteria and were causative organisms in 17 (34%) of the patients, more than the other Bacteroides fragilis group and anaerobic streptococci. The strains isolated were susceptible to the recommended antibacterial agents for treatment of moderate and severe diabetic foot infections (DFIs). The optimal approach to DFIs requires immediate surgical intervention, revascularization in the setting of a multisegment vascular lesions, microbiological examination of suitable clinical materials and appropriate antibacterial therapy for empiric treatment of aerobic and anaerobic pathogens Key words: Diabetic foot, infection, microbial pathogens.

Management of foot salvage therapy (FST) for diabetic foot infections (DFI) is challenging due to the absence of reliable diagnostics to identify the etiologic agent and prognostics to justify aggressive treatments. As Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen associated with DFI, we aimed to develop a multiplex immunoassay of IgG in serum and medium enriched for newly synthesized anti-S. aureus antibodies (MENSA) generated from cultured peripheral blood mononuclear cells of DFI patients undergoing FST. Wound samples were collected from 26 DFI patients to identify the infecting bacterial species via 16S rRNA sequencing. Blood was obtained over 12 weeks of FST to assess anti-S. aureus IgG levels in sera and MENSA. The results showed that 17 out of 26 infections were polymicrobial and 12 were positive for S. aureus While antibody titers in serum and MENSA displayed similar diagnostic potentials to detect S. aureus infection, MENSA showed a 2-fold-greater signal-to-background ratio. Multivariate analyses revealed increases in predictive power of diagnosing S. aureus infections (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] > 0.85) only when combining titers against different classes of antigens, suggesting cross-functional antigenic diversity. Anti-S. aureus IgG levels in MENSA decreased with successful FST and rose with reinfection. In contrast, IgG levels in serum remained unchanged throughout the 12-week FST. Collectively, these results demonstrate the applicability of serum and MENSA for diagnosis of S. aureus DFI with increased power by combining functionally distinct titers. We also found that tracking MENSA has prognostic potential to guide clinical decisions during FST.

To retrospectively evaluate clinical and microbiological outcomes after combined surgical and medical therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFIs), stratifying between the empirical versus the targeted nature, and between an empirical broad versus a narrow-spectrum, antibiotic therapy. We retrospectively assessed the rate of ultimate therapeutic failures for each of three types of initial postoperative antibiotic therapy: adequate empirical therapy; culture-guided therapy; and empirical inadequate therapy with a switch to targeted treatment based on available microbiological results. We included data from 332 patients who underwent 716 DFI episodes of surgical debridement, including partial amputations. Clinical failure occurred in 40 of 194 (20.6%) episodes where adequate empirical therapy was given, in 77 of 291 (26.5%) episodes using culture-guided (and correct) therapy from the start, and in 73 of 231 (31.6%) episodes with switching from empirical inadequate therapy to culture-targeted therapy. Equally, a broad-spectrum antibiotic choice could not alter this failure risk. Group comparisons, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses failed to show either statistical superiority or inferiority of any of the initial antibiotic strategies. In this study, the microbiological adequacy of the initial antibiotic regimen after (surgical) debridement for DFI did not alter therapeutic outcomes. We recommend that clinicians follow the stewardship approach of avoiding antibiotic de-escalation and start with a narrow-spectrum regimen based on the local epidemiology.

Foot ulcers are frequent in diabetic patients and are responsible for 85% of amputations, especially in the presence of infection. The diagnosis of diabetic foot ulcer infection is essentially based on clinical evaluation, but laboratory parameters such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), white blood count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP) and, more recently, procalcitonin (PCT) could aid the diagnosis, especially when clinical signs are misleading. Fifteen diabetic patients with infected foot ulcers were admitted to our department and were compared with an additional group of patients with non-infected diabetic foot ulcers (NIDFUs). Blood samples were collected from all patients in order to evaluate laboratory markers. In the current study, the diagnostic accuracy of PCT serum levels was evaluated in comparison with other inflammatory markers such as CRP, ESR and WBC as an indicator to make the distinction between infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFUs) and NIDFUs. CRP, WBC, ESR and especially PCT measurements represent effective biomarkers in the diagnosis of foot infections in diabetic patients particularly when clinical signs are misleading.

Aim While a patient's nutritional status is known to generally have a role in postoperative wound healing, there is little information on its role as therapy in the multifaceted problem of diabetic foot infections (DFIs). Methods We assessed this issue by conducting a retrospective case-control cohort study using a multivariate Cox regression model. The nutrition status of the DFI patients was assessed by professional nutritionists, who also orchestrated the nutritional intervention (counselling, composition of the intrahospital food) during hospitalization. Results Among 1,013 DFI episodes in 586 patients (median age 67 years; 882 with osteomyelitis), 191 (19%) received a professional assessment of their nutrition accompanied by between 1 and 6 nutritional interventions. DFI cases who had professional nutritionists' interventions had a significantly shorter hospital stay, had shorter antibiotic therapies, and tended to fewer surgical debridements. By multivariate analysis, episodes with low Nutritional Risk Status- (NRS-) Scores 1-3 were associated with significantly lower failure rates after therapy for DFI (Cox regression analysis; hazard ratio 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.7). Conclusions In this retrospective cohort study, DFI episodes with low NRS-Score were associated with lower rates of clinical failure after DFI treatment, while nutritional interventions improved the outcome of DFI. We need prospective interventional trials for this treatment, and these are underway.

To determine the most appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFIs). Using a clinical pathway for adult patients with DFIs (retrospective cohort analysis), we created a cluster-controlled Cox regression model to assess factors related to remission of infection, emphasizing antibiotic-related variables. We excluded total amputations as a result of DFI and DFI episodes with a follow-up time of <2 months. Among 1018 DFI episodes in 482 patients, we identified 392 episodes of osteomyelitis, 626 soft tissue infections, 246 large abscesses, 322 episodes of cellulitis and 335 episodes of necrosis; 313 cases involved revascularization. Patients underwent surgical debridement for 824 episodes (81%), of which 596 (59%) required amputation. The median total duration of antibiotic therapy was 20 days. After a median follow-up of 3 years, 251 of the episodes (24.7%) were followed by ≥1 additional episode(s). Comparing patients with and without additional episodes, risk of recurrence was lower in those who underwent amputation, had type 1 diabetes, or underwent revascularization. On multivariate analysis including the entire study population, risk of remission was inversely associated with type 1 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.6). Neither duration of antibiotic therapy nor parenteral treatment affected risk of recurrence (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.99-1.01 for both). Similarly, neither >3 weeks versus <3 weeks of therapy, nor >1 week versus <1 week of intravenous treatment affected recurrence. In stratified analyses for both soft tissue DFIs or osteomyelitis separately, we did not observe associations of antibiotic duration with microbiological or clinical recurrences of DFI. The HRs were 1.0 (95% CI 0.6-1.8) for an antibiotic duration >3 weeks overall and 0.6 (95% CI 0.2-1.3) for osteomyelitis cases only. Plotting of duration of antibiotic therapy failed to identify any optimal threshold for preventing recurrences. Our analysis found no threshold for the optimal duration or route of administration of antibiotic therapy to prevent recurrences of DFI. These limited data might support possibly shorter treatment duration for patients with DFI.

Clinicians frequently monitor serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels during therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFIs), but evidence supporting this is unclear. Using a database from prospective controlled DFI trials, with fixed duration of antibiotic therapy, we correlated the CRP levels at study enrolment and at end of therapy (EOT). Among 159 DFI episodes, 93 involved the bone and 66 the soft tissues. Overall, treatment cured 122 infections (77%), while 37 episodes (23%) recurred after a median of 53 days. The median CRP in the groups with cure versus failure differed minimally at enrolment (median 67 vs. 81 mg/L) or EOT (7 vs. 10 mg/L). Similarly, there was negligible difference in the percentage of CRP levels that normalized at EOT (39% vs. 35%). In our prospective cohorts, a blunt iterative monitoring of CRP during DFI treatment, without correlation with clinical findings, failed to predict treatment failures.

PurposeInfected 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. MethodsThis 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. FindingsThe 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. ImplicationsThis 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.

RecommendationsClassification/diagnosis Diabetic foot infection must be diagnosed clinically, based on the presence of local or systemic signs or symptoms of inflammation (strong; low). Assess the severity of any diabetic foot infection using the Infectious Diseases Society of America/International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot classification scheme (strong; moderate). Osteomyelitis For an infected open wound, perform a probe‐to‐bone test; in a patient at low risk for osteomyelitis, a negative test largely rules out the diagnosis, while in a high‐risk patient, a positive test is largely diagnostic (strong; high). Markedly elevated serum inflammatory markers, especially erythrocyte sedimentation rate, are suggestive of osteomyelitis in suspected cases (weak; moderate). A definite diagnosis of bone infection usually requires positive results on microbiological (and, optimally, histological) examinations of an aseptically obtained bone sample, but this is usually required only when the diagnosis is in doubt or determining the causative pathogen's antibiotic susceptibility is crucial (strong; moderate). A probable diagnosis of bone infection is reasonable if there are positive results on a combination of diagnostic tests, such as probe‐to‐bone, serum inflammatory markers, plain X‐ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or radionuclide scanning (strong; weak). Avoid using results of soft tissue or sinus tract specimens for selecting antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis as they do not accurately reflect bone culture results (strong; moderate). Obtain plain X‐rays of the foot in all cases of non‐superficial diabetic foot infection (strong; low). Use MRI when an advanced imaging test is needed for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis (strong; moderate). When MRI is not available or contraindicated, consider a white blood cell‐labelled radionuclide scan, or possibly single‐photon emission computed tomography (CT) and CT (SPECT/CT) or fluorine‐18‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT scans (weak; moderate). Assessing severity At initial evaluation of any infected foot, obtain vital signs and appropriate blood tests, debride the wound and probe and assess the depth and extent of the infection to establish its severity (strong; moderate). At initial evaluation, assess arterial perfusion and decide whether and when further vascular assessment or revascularization is needed (strong; low). Microbiological considerations Obtain cultures, preferably of a tissue specimen rather than a swab, of infected wounds to determine the causative microorganisms and their antibiotic sensitivity (strong; high). Do not obtain repeat cultures unless the patient is not clinically responding to treatment, or occasionally for infection control surveillance of resistant pathogens (strong; low). Send collected specimens to the microbiology laboratory promptly, in sterile transport containers, accompanied by clinical information on the type of specimen and location of the wound (strong; low). Surgical treatment Consult a surgical specialist in selected cases of moderate, and all cases of severe, diabetic foot infection (weak; low). Perform urgent surgical interventions in cases of deep abscesses, compartment syndrome and virtually all necrotizing soft tissue infections (strong; low). Consider surgical intervention in cases of osteomyelitis accompanied by spreading soft tissue infection, destroyed soft tissue envelope, progressive bone destruction on X‐ray or bone protruding through the ulcer (strong; low). Antimicrobial therapy While virtually all clinically infected diabetic foot wounds require antimicrobial therapy, do not treat clinically uninfected wounds with antimicrobial therapy (Strong; Low) Select specific antibiotic agents for treatment based on the likely or proven causative pathogens, their antibiotic susceptibilities, the clinical severity of the infection, evidence of efficacy of the agent for diabetic foot infection and costs (strong; moderate). A course of antibiotic therapy of 1–2 weeks is usually adequate for most mild and moderate infections (strong; high). Administer parenteral therapy initially for most severe infections and some moderate infections, with a switch to oral therapy when the infection is responding (strong; low). Do not select a specific type of dressing for a diabetic foot infection with the aim of preventing an infection or improving its outcome (strong; high). For diabetic foot osteomyelitis, we recommend 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy for patients who do not undergo resection of infected bone and no more than a week of antibiotic treatment if all infected bone is resected (strong; moderate). We suggest not using any adjunctive treatments for diabetic foot infection (weak; low). When treating a diabetic foot infection, assess for use of traditional remedies and previous antibiotic use and consider local bacterial pathogens and their susceptibility profile (strong; low).

SummaryObjectiveThe appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFI) after surgical amputations in toto is debated. There are discrepancies worldwide.MethodsUsing a clinical pathway for adult DFI patients (retrospective cohort analysis), we conducted a cluster‐controlled Cox regression analysis. Minimum follow‐up was 2 months.ResultsWe followed 482 amputated DFI episodes for a median of 2.1 years after the index episode. The DFIs predominately affected the forefoot (n = 433; 90%). We diagnosed osteomyelitis in 239 cases (239/482; 50%). In total, 47 cases (10%) were complicated by bacteremia, 86 (18%) by abscesses and 139 (29%) presented with cellulitis. Surgical amputation involved the toes (n = 155), midfoot (280) and hindfoot (47). Overall, 178 cases (37%) required revascularization. After amputation, the median duration of antibiotic administration was 7 days (interquartile range, 1‐16 days). In 109 cases (25%), antibiotics were discontinued immediately after surgery. Overall, clinical failure occurred in 90 DFIs (17%), due to the same pathogens in only 38 cases. In multivariate analysis, neither duration of total postsurgical antibiotic administration (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.99‐1.01) nor immediate postoperative discontinuation altered failure rate (HR 0.9, 0.5‐1.5).ConclusionAccording to our clinical pathway, we found no benefit in continuing postsurgical antibiotic administration in routine amputation for DFI. In the absence of residual infection (ie, resection at clear margins), antibiotics should be discontinued.

In addition to proper cleansing, debridement and local wound care, foot infections in diabetic patients require carefully selected antibiotic therapy. Serious infections necessitate hospitalization for initial parenteral broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Appropriately selected patients with mild infections can be treated as outpatients with oral (or even topical) therapy. Initial antibiotic selection is usually empirical, but definitive therapy may be modified based on culture results and the clinical response. Therapy should nearly always be active against staphylococci and streptococci, with broader-spectrum agents indicated if Gram-negative or anaerobic organisms are likely. In infected foot tissues levels of most antibiotics, except fluoroquinolones, are often subtherapeutic. The duration of therapy ranges from a week (for mild soft tissue infections) to over 6 weeks (for osteomyelitis). Recent antibiotic trials have shown that several intravenously or orally administered agents are effective in treating these infections, with no one agent or combination emerging as optimal. Suggested regimens based on the severity of infection are provided.

Evidence-based antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections

Diabetic foot is a chronic complication of diabetes mellitus ,40%-80% of diabetic foot ulcers become infected. Gram-positive aerobic bacteria are the commonest micro-organism isolated, followed by Gram-negative aerobic bacteria ,anaerobes and fungi. Staphylococcus aureus is found most frequently. Pathognomonic features of diabetic foot infection are polypathogens, multi-drug-resistant pathogens, microorganism infection,the type and characters of pathogenic bacterium varied with the ulcer grade and healing stage. The age of patients with diabetic foot infection is older, the wound healing time is longer, combined therapy should be used to treat diabetic foot. It is important to strengthen the earlier precaution and treatment to the diabetic foot infection. Key words: Diabetic foot; Infection; Pathogen; Drug resistance

The role of anaerobes in diabetic foot infections