Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Benjamin A Lipsky

Publications and source records attributed to Benjamin A Lipsky.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

The microbiology of bacteriuria in men: a 5-year study at a Veterans' Affairs hospital.

Bacteriuria and urinary tract infection occur relatively frequently in older men, but data regarding the causative microorganisms are limited. We retrospectively identified all positive cultures of urine specimens (n = 4943) obtained over a 5-year period at our institution. We determined the frequency of causative microorganisms and grouped these by Gram type, setting of patient care, and method of urine specimen collection. We also assessed the performance characteristics of the Gram-stained smear of uncentrifuged urine. Among our patients, Gram-positive cocci (GPC) were isolated as often as Gram-negative rods (GNR). Escherichia coli was the single or predominant isolate in only 14% of cases, and Enterococcus was the single most commonly identified genus (22.5%). The Gram stain was accurate in predicting the culture results (positive likelihood ratio, 7.0 for GPC and 8.1 for GNR). We conclude that the microorganisms causing bacteriuria in older male veterans are substantially different from those found in women, and the Gram-stained smear provides useful information on the causative organisms.

Aged↗

Risk factors for nosocomial urinary tract-related bacteremia: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for bacteremia in patients with hospital-acquired bacteriuria are largely unknown. Given the morbidity and costs associated with nosocomial bacteremia, determining risk factors could enhance the safety of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study within the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System. A patient hospitalized between 1984 and 1999 from whom a urine culture and a blood culture grew the same organism > or =48 hours after admission was considered a case. Control patients were those with significant bacteriuria detected > or =48 hours after admission who did not have a positive blood culture. We used logistic regression to determine independent risk factors for bacteremia. RESULTS: There were 95 cases and 142 controls. Independent, statistically significant predictors of bacteremia included immunosuppressant therapy within 14 days of bacteriuria (odds ratio [OR], 8.13); history of malignancy (OR, 1.94); male sex (OR, 1.88); cigarette use in the past 5 years (OR, 1.26); number of hospital days before bacteriuria (OR, 1.03); and antibiotic use within 3 days of bacteriuria (OR, 0.76). Corticosteroid use within 7 days of bacteriuria predicted bacteremia in patients <70 years old (OR, 14.24). Similarly, patients <70 years old were more likely to develop bacteremia if they had diabetes mellitus (OR, 6.19). CONCLUSION: Delineating risk factors for nosocomial urinary tract-related bacteremia can help target appropriate preventive practices at the highest risk patients.

Adult↗

Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. Foot infections in patients with diabetes cause substantial morbidity and frequent visits to health care professionals and may lead to amputation of a lower extremity. 2. Diabetic foot infections require attention to local (foot) and systemic (metabolic) issues and coordinated management, preferably by a multidisciplinary foot-care team (A-II). The team managing these infections should include, or have ready access to, an infectious diseases specialist or a medical microbiologist (B-II). 3. The major predisposing factor to these infections is foot ulceration, which is usually related to peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral vascular disease and various immunological disturbances play a secondary role. 4. Aerobic Gram-positive cocci (especially Staphylococcus aureus) are the predominant pathogens in diabetic foot infections. Patients who have chronic wounds or who have recently received antibiotic therapy may also be infected with Gram-negative rods, and those with foot ischemia or gangrene may have obligate anaerobic pathogens. 5. Wound infections must be diagnosed clinically on the basis of local (and occasionally systemic) signs and symptoms of inflammation. Laboratory (including microbiological) investigations are of limited use for diagnosing infection, except in cases of osteomyelitis (B-II). 6. Send appropriately obtained specimens for culture before starting empirical antibiotic therapy in all cases of infection, except perhaps those that are mild and previously untreated (B-III). Tissue specimens obtained by biopsy, ulcer curettage, or aspiration are preferable to wound swab specimens (A-I). 7. Imaging studies may help diagnose or better define deep, soft-tissue purulent collections and are usually needed to detect pathological findings in bone. Plain radiography may be adequate in many cases, but MRI (in preference to isotope scanning) is more sensitive and specific, especially for detection of soft-tissue lesions (A-I). 8. Infections should be categorized by their severity on the basis of readily assessable clinical and laboratory features (B-II). Most important among these are the specific tissues involved, the adequacy of arterial perfusion, and the presence of systemic toxicity or metabolic instability. Categorization helps determine the degree of risk to the patient and the limb and, thus, the urgency and venue of management. 9. Available evidence does not support treating clinically uninfected ulcers with antibiotic therapy (D-III). Antibiotic therapy is necessary for virtually all infected wounds, but it is often insufficient without appropriate wound care. 10. Select an empirical antibiotic regimen on the basis of the severity of the infection and the likely etiologic agent(s) (B-II). Therapy aimed solely at aerobic Gram-positive cocci may be sufficient for mild-to-moderate infections in patients who have not recently received antibiotic therapy (A-II). Broad-spectrum empirical therapy is not routinely required but is indicated for severe infections, pending culture results and antibiotic susceptibility data (B-III). Take into consideration any recent antibiotic therapy and local antibiotic susceptibility data, especially the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or other resistant organisms. Definitive therapy should be based on both the culture results and susceptibility data and the clinical response to the empirical regimen (C-III). 11. There is only limited evidence with which to make informed choices among the various topical, oral, and parenteral antibiotic agents. Virtually all severe and some moderate infections require parenteral therapy, at least initially (C-III). Highly bioavailable oral antibiotics can be used in most mild and in many moderate infections, including some cases of osteomyelitis (A-II). Topical therapy may be used for some mild superficial infections (B-I). 12. Continue antibiotic therapy until there is evidence that the infection has resolved but not necessarily until a wound has healed. Suggestions for the duration of antibiotic therapy are as follows: for mild infections, 12 weeks usually suffices, but some require an additional 12 weeks; for moderate and severe infections, usually 24 weeks is sufficient, depending on the structures involved, the adequacy of debridement, the type of soft-tissue wound cover, and wound vascularity (A-II); and for osteomyelitis, generally at least 46 weeks is required, but a shorter duration is sufficient if the entire infected bone is removed, and probably a longer duration is needed if infected bone remains (B-II). 13. If an infection in a clinically stable patient fails to respond to 1 antibiotic courses, consider discontinuing all antimicrobials and, after a few days, obtaining optimal culture specimens (C-III). 14. Seek surgical consultation and, when needed, intervention for infections accompanied by a deep abscess, extensive bone or joint involvement, crepitus, substantial necrosis or gangrene, or necrotizing fasciitis (A-II). Evaluating the limb's arterial supply and revascularizing when indicated are particularly important. Surgeons with experience and interest in the field should be recruited by the foot-care team, if possible. 15. Providing optimal wound care, in addition to appropriate antibiotic treatment of the infection, is crucial for healing (A-I). This includes proper wound cleansing, debridement of any callus and necrotic tissue, and, especially, off-loading of pressure. There is insufficient evidence to recommend use of a specific wound dressing or any type of wound healing agents or products for infected foot wounds. 16. Patients with infected wounds require early and careful follow-up observation to ensure that the selected medical and surgical treatment regimens have been appropriate and effective (B-III). 17. Studies have not adequately defined the role of most adjunctive therapies for diabetic foot infections, but systematic reviews suggest that granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy may help prevent amputations (B-I). These treatments may be useful for severe infections or for those that have not adequately responded to therapy, despite correcting for all amenable local and systemic adverse factors. 18. Spread of infection to bone (osteitis or osteomyelitis) may be difficult to distinguish from noninfectious osteoarthropathy. Clinical examination and imaging tests may suffice, but bone biopsy is valuable for establishing the diagnosis of osteomyelitis, for defining the pathogenic organism(s), and for determining the antibiotic susceptibilities of such organisms (B-II). 19. Although this field has matured, further research is much needed. The committee especially recommends that adequately powered prospective studies be undertaken to elucidate and validate systems for classifying infection, diagnosing osteomyelitis, defining optimal antibiotic regimens in various situations, and clarifying the role of surgery in treating osteomyelitis (A-III).

Journal Article↗

Condom versus indwelling urinary catheters: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare condom and indwelling urinary catheters in terms of infection risk and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, unblinded, controlled trial. SETTING: An academically affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized men aged 40 and older who required a urinary collection device. MEASUREMENTS: The incidence of adverse outcomes (bacteriuria, symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), or death) and patient device-related satisfaction as determined according to a questionnaire. Dementia status was recorded to assess effect modification by the presence of dementia. RESULTS: Seventy-five subjects were randomized: 41 receiving an indwelling catheter and 34 a condom catheter. The incidence of an adverse outcome was 131/1,000 patient-days with an indwelling catheter and 70/1,000 patient-days with a condom catheter (P=.07). The median time to an adverse event was 7 days in the indwelling group and 11 days in the condom group. After adjusting for other risk factors, it was found that condom catheter use reduced adverse outcomes (P=.04). Patients without dementia who had an indwelling catheter were approximately five times as likely to develop bacteriuria or symptomatic UTI or to die (hazard ratio=4.84, 95% confidence interval=1.46-16.02) as those with a condom catheter (P=.01). Patients reported that condom catheters were more comfortable (P=.02) and less painful (P=.02) than indwelling catheters. CONCLUSION: The use of condom catheters is less likely to lead to bacteriuria, symptomatic UTI, or death than the use of indwelling catheters. This protection is especially apparent in men without dementia.

Adult↗

Does dermal thermometry predict clinical outcome in diabetic foot infection? Analysis of data from the SIDESTEP* trial.

The purpose of the study was to assess in patients with a diabetic foot infection (DFI), whether differences in skin temperature of the affected foot as compared to the corresponding site on the contralateral foot using dermal thermometry (DT) correlates with infection severity and clinical outcome. As part of the SIDESTEP DFI study, investigators took DT measurements at baseline and the discontinuation of intravenous therapy (DCIV) and performed a systematic evaluation of the infected limb to calculate a wound score. We compared the skin temperature differential between the limbs at the two assessments and determined the correlation between this value and surrogate markers of inflammation and the clinical response to treatment. Among patients enrolled in SIDESTEP, 332 were fully evaluable. The mean temperature differential between the limbs was 2.81 +/- 5.75 degrees F at baseline and 2.43 +/- 4.84 degrees F at DCIV (mean change: -0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.98, 0.23; P= 0.225). Skin temperature differential at baseline did not correlate with white blood cell count, level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the infection severity score (r= 0.058, 0.148, -0.002, 0.067, respectively). We observed no overall trend between surface temperature differential at baseline and clinical outcome at DCIV, but patients with a skin temperature differential of > or =10 degrees F at baseline had a significantly lower clinical response than those whose differential was <10 degrees F (81.4% versus 94.3%; difference 12.9%; 95% CI: 3.5, 27.3%, P= 0.007). While there was no overall relationship between skin temperature and poor clinical outcome, there may be a threshold effect in DT (<10 degrees F versus >10 degrees F) between the limbs at baseline that predicts outcome of therapy.

Diabetic Foot↗

Risk factors for foot infections in individuals with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively determine risk factors for foot infection in a cohort of people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated then followed 1,666 consecutive diabetic patients enrolled in a managed care-based outpatient clinic in a 2-year longitudinal outcomes study. At enrollment, patients underwent a standardized general medical examination and detailed foot assessment and were educated about proper foot care. They were then rescreened at scheduled intervals and also seen promptly if they developed any foot problem. RESULTS: During the evaluation period, 151 (9.1%) patients developed 199 foot infections, all but one involving a wound or penetrating injury. Most patients had infections involving only the soft tissue, but 19.9% had bone culture-proven osteomyelitis. For those who developed a foot infection, compared with those who did not, the risk of hospitalization was 55.7 times greater (95% CI 30.3-102.2; P < 0.001) and the risk of amputation was 154.5 times greater (58.5-468.5; P < 0.001). Foot wounds preceded all but one infection. Significant (P < 0.05) independent risk factors for foot infection from a multivariate analysis included wounds that penetrated to bone (odds ratio 6.7), wounds with a duration >30 days (4.7), recurrent wounds (2.4), wounds with a traumatic etiology (2.4), and presence of peripheral vascular disease (1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Foot infections occur relatively frequently in individuals with diabetes, almost always follow trauma, and dramatically increase the risk of hospitalization and amputation. Efforts to prevent infections should be targeted at people with traumatic foot wounds, especially those that are chronic, deep, recurrent, or associated with peripheral vascular disease.

Adult↗

Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot infections are a common and serious problem, yet few randomised trials of adequate quality have compared the efficacy of the various antibiotic regimens available for their treatment. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for foot infections. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blinded, multicentre trial in adults (n=586) with diabetes and a foot infection classified as moderate-to-severe and requiring intravenous antibiotics. We assigned patients intravenous ertapenem (1 g daily; n=295) or piperacillin/tazobactam (3.375 g every 6 h; n=291) given for a minimum of 5 days, after which oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (875/125 mg every 12 h) could be given for up to 23 days. Investigators retained the option to administer vancomycin to patients in either group to ensure adequate coverage for potentially antibiotic resistant Enterococcus spp and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a favourable clinical response (cure or improvement) on the day that intravenous antibiotic was discontinued. Analyses were by an evaluable-patient only approach. This study is registered with , number NCT00229112. FINDINGS: Of the 576 patients treated, 445 were available for assessment at the end of intravenous therapy. Both baseline characteristics and favourable clinical response rates were similar for the 226 who received ertapenem and the 219 who received piperacillin/tazobactam (94%vs 92%, respectively; between treatment difference 1.9%, 95% CI -2.9 to 6.9). Rates of favourable microbiological responses (eradication rates and clinical outcomes, by pathogen) and adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Clinical and microbiological outcomes for patients treated with ertapenem were equivalent to those for patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam, suggesting that this once-daily antibiotic should be considered for parenteral therapy of diabetic foot infections, when deemed appropriate.

Adult↗

Treatment for diabetic foot ulcers.

People with diabetes develop foot ulcers because of neuropathy (sensory, motor, and autonomic deficits), ischaemia, or both. The initiating injury may be from acute mechanical or thermal trauma or from repetitively or continuously applied mechanical stress. Patients with clinically significant limb ischaemia should be assessed by a vascular surgeon to determine the need for angioplasty, stenting, or femorodistal bypass. When infection complicates a foot ulcer, the combination can be limb or life-threatening. Infection is defined clinically, but wound cultures reveal the causative pathogens. Tissue specimens are strongly preferred to wound swabs for wound cultures. Antimicrobial therapy should be guided by culture results, and should aim to cure the infection, not to heal the wound. Alleviation of the mechanical load on ulcers (off-loading) should always be a part of treatment. Neuropathic ulcers typically heal in 6 weeks with total contact casting, because it effectively relieves pressure at the ulcer site and enforces patient compliance. The success of other approaches to off-loading similarly depends on the patients' adherence to the effectiveness of pressure relief. Surgery to heal ulcers and prevent recurrence can include tenotomy, tendon lengthening, reconstruction, or removal of bony prominences. However, these procedures may result in secondary ulceration and other complications. Ulcer recurrence rates are high, but appropriate education for patients, the provision of posthealing footwear, and regular foot care can reduce rates of re-ulceration.

Amputation, Surgical↗

Daptomycin for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections.

OBJECTIVES: The predominant pathogens causing diabetic foot infections are Gram-positive cocci, many of which are now resistant to commonly prescribed antibiotics. Daptomycin is a new agent that is active against most Gram-positive pathogens. To compare the effectiveness of daptomycin against semi-synthetic penicillins or vancomycin, we analysed the subset of diabetic patients with an infected ulcer enrolled in two randomized, controlled investigator-blind trials of patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections presumptively caused by Gram-positive organisms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a diabetic ulcer infection were prospectively stratified to ensure they were equally represented in the treatment groups, then randomized to either daptomycin [4 mg/kg every 24 h intravenously (iv)] or a pre-selected comparator (vancomycin or a semi-synthetic penicillin) for 7-14 days. RESULTS: Among 133 patients with a diabetic ulcer infection, 103 were clinically evaluable; 47 received daptomycin and 56 received a comparator. Most infections were monomicrobial, and Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant pathogen. Success rates for patients treated with daptomycin or the comparators were not statistically different for clinical (66% versus 70%, respectively; 95% CI, -14.4, 21.8) or microbiological (overall or by pathogen) outcomes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, with most adverse events of mild to moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of daptomycin were similar to those of commonly used comparator antibiotics for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Daptomycin should be considered for treating these infections, especially those caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens.

Adolescent↗

Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes.

CONTEXT: Among persons diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus, the prevalence of foot ulcers is 4% to 10%, the annual population-based incidence is 1.0% to 4.1%, and the lifetime incidence may be as high as 25%. These ulcers frequently become infected, cause great morbidity, engender considerable financial costs, and are the usual first step to lower extremity amputation. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on the efficacy of methods advocated for preventing diabetic foot ulcers in the primary care setting. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: The EBSCO, MEDLINE, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse databases were searched for articles published between January 1980 and April 2004 using database-specific keywords. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also searched, along with the Cochrane Library and relevant Web sites. We reviewed the retrieved literature for pertinent information, paying particular attention to prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Prevention of diabetic foot ulcers begins with screening for loss of protective sensation, which is best accomplished in the primary care setting with a brief history and the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Specialist clinics may quantify neuropathy with biothesiometry, measure plantar foot pressure, and assess lower extremity vascular status with Doppler ultrasound and ankle-brachial blood pressure indices. These measurements, in conjunction with other findings from the history and physical examination, enable clinicians to stratify patients based on risk and to determine the type of intervention. Educating patients about proper foot care and periodic foot examinations are effective interventions to prevent ulceration. Other possibly effective clinical interventions include optimizing glycemic control, smoking cessation, intensive podiatric care, debridement of calluses, and certain types of prophylactic foot surgery. The value of various types of prescription footwear for ulcer prevention is not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial evidence supports screening all patients with diabetes to identify those at risk for foot ulceration. These patients might benefit from certain prophylactic interventions, including patient education, prescription footwear, intensive podiatric care, and evaluation for surgical interventions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis: what have we learned from 30 years of clinical trials?

OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN: To determine the most appropriate approach to antibiotic therapy for osteomyelitis, the medical literature for articles published from 1968 to 2000 was reviewed. RESULTS: Ninety-three clinical trials in children and adults were identified using almost every antibiotic class. Most studies were non-comparative and the comparative trials involved relatively few patients. Publications generally did not provide clinically important information regarding infection staging or classification, surgical treatment provided, or the presence of orthopedic hardware. The median duration of follow-up after treatment was only 12 months. The clinical outcome was better for acute than chronic osteomyelitis in eight of the 12 studies allowing comparison. In the comparative trials, few statistically significant differences were observed between the tested treatments. In one small trial, the combination of nafcillin plus rifampin was more effective than nafcillin alone. In pediatric osteomyelitis, oral therapy with cloxacillin was more effective than tetracycline in one study, and oral clindamycin was as effective as parenteral anti-staphylococcal penicillins in another. In several investigations oral fluoroquinolones were as effective as standard parenteral treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy remains undefined, most investigators treated patients for about six weeks. Despite three decades of research, the available literature on the treatment of osteomyelitis is inadequate to determine the best agent(s), route, or duration of antibiotic therapy.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

Are granulocyte colony-stimulating factors beneficial in treating diabetic foot infections?: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We systematically searched the medical literature (including Medline, Embase, LookSmart, and the Cochrane Library) for prospective randomized studies that used G-CSF as an adjunct to standard treatment for diabetic foot infections. Using a conventional meta-analysis, we pooled the relative risks (RRs) for outcomes of interest, including resolution of infection, wound healing, duration of antibiotic therapy, and need for various surgical interventions, using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Five randomized trials, with a total of 167 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the studies was satisfactory. The investigators administered various G-CSF preparations parenterally for between 3 and 21 days. The meta-analysis revealed that adding G-CSF did not significantly affect the resolution of infection or the healing of the wounds but was associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of lower extremity surgical interventions (RR 0.38 [95% CI 0.20-0.69], number of patients who needed to be treated: 4.5), including amputation (0.41 [0.17-0.95], number of patients who needed to be treated: 8.6). There was no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies or of publication bias, suggesting that these conclusions are reasonably generalizable and robust. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive G-CSF treatment does not appear to hasten the clinical resolution of diabetic foot infection or ulceration but is associated with a reduced rate of amputation and other surgical procedures. The small number of patients who needed to be treated to gain these benefits suggests that using G-CSF should be considered, especially in patients with limb-threatening infections.

Amputation, Surgical↗

Use of maximal sterile barriers during central venous catheter insertion: clinical and economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the effect of maximal sterile barriers (MSBs) on reducing central venous catheter (CVC)--related infections. Use of MSBs when placing CVCs may reduce the risk of infections but is more cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive than other techniques. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model in which a patient could have a CVC placed with either an MSB or a less stringent technique. We calculated total direct medical costs and the incidences of catheter-related bloodstream infections, catheter colonization, and death. RESULTS: Use of MSBs lowered costs (from 621 dollars to 369 dollars per catheter insertion) and decreased the incidences of catheter-related bloodstream infections (from 5.3% to 2.8%), catheter colonization with local infection (from 5.5% to 2.9%) and death (from 0.8% to 0.4%). MSBs improved patient safety throughout all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Use of MSBs during CVC insertion likely lowers medical costs and decreases the incidences of catheter colonization, catheter-related bloodstream infections, and death. Cost savings were found over a wide range of clinical and economic assumptions, suggesting that MSBs should be routinely used when CVCs are inserted.

Catheterization, Central Venous↗

Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Diabetic foot infections frequently cause morbidity, hospitalization, and amputations. Gram-positive cocci, especially staphylococci and also streptococci, are the predominant pathogens. Chronic or previously treated wounds often yield several microbes on culture, including gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes. Optimal culture specimens are wound tissue taken after debridement. Infection of a wound is defined clinically by the presence of purulent discharge or inflammation; systemic signs and symptoms are often lacking. Only infected wounds require antibiotic therapy, and the agents, route, and duration are predicated on the severity of infection. Mild to moderate infections can usually be treated in the outpatient setting with oral agents; severe infections require hospitalization and parenteral therapy. Empirical therapy must cover gram-positive cocci and should be broad spectrum for severe infections. Definitive therapy depends on culture results and the clinical response. Bone infection is particularly difficult to treat and often requires surgery. Several adjuvant agents may be beneficial in some cases.

Diabetic Foot↗

Controversies in diagnosing and managing osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes.

The optimal approach to diagnosing and managing osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes is unclear. Diagnosis is based on clinical signs, supplemented by a variety of imaging tests. Bone biopsy is the accepted criterion standard for diagnosis but is not used by many. Management traditionally involves surgical removal of infected bone, combined with antibiotic therapy. However, recent studies have shown that antibiotics alone may apparently eliminate bone infection in many cases. There is also evidence that early amputation of infected digits is frequently noncurative. Agreement on criteria for diagnosing osteomyelitis is required, and randomized trials are urgently needed, to determine the relative benefits of various surgical interventions and the optimal deployment of antibiotics. We review the microbiology of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes, the benefits and limitations of various diagnostic procedures, and the evidence for the effectiveness of both surgical and nonsurgical approaches to management.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗