Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) is increasingly used for a diverse range of wounds. Meanwhile, the topical wound irrigation solution consisting of polyhexamethylene biguanide and betaine (PHMB-B) has shown efficacy in managing wound infections. However, the effectiveness of this solution as a topical instillation solution for NPWTi-d in patients with diabetic foot infections (DFIs) has not been thoroughly studied. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of using PHMB-B as the instillation solution during NPWTi-d on reducing bioburden and improving clinical outcomes in patients with DFIs. Between January 2017 and December 2022, a series of patients with DFIs received treatment with NPWTi-d, using either PHMB-B or normal saline as the instillation solution. Data collected retrospectively included demographic information, baseline wound characteristics, and treatment outcomes. The study included 61 patients in the PHMB-B group and 73 patients in the normal saline group, all diagnosed with DFIs. In comparison to patients treated with normal saline, patients with PHMB-B exhibited no significant differences in terms of wound bed preparation time (P = 0.5034), length of hospital stay (P = 0.6783), NPWTi-d application times (P = 0.1458), duration of systematic antimicrobial administration (P = 0.3567), or overall cost of hospitalization (P = 0.6713). The findings of the study suggest that the use of either PHMB-B or normal saline as an instillation solution in NPWTi-d for DFIs shows promise and effectiveness, yet no clinical distinction was observed between the two solutions.

UNASSIGNED: To explore the characteristics of baseline inflammatory markers in diabetic foot patients and their relationship with the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers.
UNASSIGNED: The clinical data of diabetic foot patients (n=495) admitted to West China Hospital, Sichuan University since 2016 were retrospectively collected through the hospital electronic medical record system to analyze the characteristics of inflammatory markers and their relationship with the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers.
UNASSIGNED: White blood cell count (WBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were significantly higher in patients defined as grade 4 on the Wagner Scale than those in patients defined as grade 0-3 on the Wagner Scale. Neutrophil percentage (NE%) was higher in Wagner grade-4 patients than those in Wagner grade-0 and grade-1 patients and higher in Wagner grade-3 patients than those in Wagner grade-0 patients. NE%, CRP, PCT, and IL-6 levels were positively correlated with the severity of diabetic foot, with the respective odds ratio (OR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) being 1.038 (1.019-1.056), 1.019 (1.012-1.026), 8.225 (2.015-33.576), and 1.017 (1.008-1.025). Using Wagner grade-0 patients as the reference, patients with higher WBC were more likely to progress to Wagner grade 2, 3, and 4, with the respective OR (95% CI) values being 1.260 (1.096-1.447), 1.188 (1.041-1.356), and 1.301 (1.137-1.490); patients with higher ESR were more likely to progress to Wagner grade 3 and 4, with the respective OR (95% CI) values being 1.030 (1.006-1.054) and 1.045 (1.019-1.071). Baseline ESR (P=0.008), CRP (P=0.039), and IL-6 (P=0.033) levels were lower in patients who had received antibiotics prior to their admission than those in patients who had not received antibiotics before admission. The levels of WBC, NE%, ESR, PCT, and IL-6 were lower in the full recovery group than those in the group of patients who did not respond to treatment. The higher the levels of NE% and IL-6, the worse the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers became, with the respective OR (95% CI) values being 1.030 (1.010-1.051) and 1.008 (1.002-1.013).
UNASSIGNED: The severity of diabetic foot ulcers increased with the rise in baseline levels of inflammatory markers. Elevated baseline NE% and IL-6 levels suggest a poor prognosis. Our findings suggest that early assessment of diabetic foot infection and standardized antibiotic therapy should be implemented to improve the prognosis.

This study was designed to determine the efficacy of epalrestat on patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI) and its effects on serum inflammatory factors in the patients.
METHODS: The data of 80 patients with DFI treated in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi Medical College from May 2020 to May 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, patients who received routine comprehensive treatment were enrolled into the control group (n=37), and those who received epalrestat on the basis of routine comprehensive treatment were enrolled into the study group (n=43). The changes of serum inflammatory factors before and after treatment, granulation tissue grading and efficacy in the two groups were analyzed and compared, and the wound healing time, hospitalization time and adverse reactions (including nausea and vomiting, dizziness, headache, pruritus, etc.) of the two groups were statistically analyzed. The prognosis of the patients within 1 year after treatment was analyzed, and the independent risk factors of poor prognosis were analyzed through logistic regression.
RESULTS: Before treatment, the two groups were not significantly different in the levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and interleukin-6 (IL-6), while after treatment, the levels decreased significantly in both groups, with significantly lower levels in the study group than those in the control group. The study group had a significant lower proportion of patients with grade 0/grade 1 granulation tissue than the control group, and had a significantly higher proportion of patients with grade 2/grade 4 granulation tissue than the control group, but the proportion of patients with grade 3 granulation tissue in the two groups was not greatly different. The study group experienced notably shorter wound healing time and hospitalization time than the control group. A notably higher overall response rate was found in the study group than that in the control group. In addition, the total incidence of adverse reactions was not greatly different between the two groups. BMI, diabetes mellitus type, Wagner grading and classification of diabetic foot infection were found to be the risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients, and Wagner grading was an independent risk factor affecting the prognosis of patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Epalrestat is effective in treating DFI, because it can lower the levels of serum inflammatory factors, shorten the time of wound healing and hospitalization, and promote the growth and recovery of granulation, without increasing adverse reactions. Therefore, it is worthy of clinical promotion.

BACKGROUND: Blinding drugs through simulation techniques is an important means to control the subjective bias of investigators and subjects. However, clinical trials face significant challenges in the placebo production of drugs, and many trials cannot be double-blinded.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to ascertain the consistency between non-blind and blind evaluation results in clinical trials and to pioneer strategies to control information bias, particularly in trials where double-blinding is not feasible.
METHODS: In this investigation, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying diabetic foot infections (DFIs) was utilized as a representative case. In this trial, the grading of DFIs, as per guidelines by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and International Working Group on Diabetic Foot (IWGDF), was used as the primary efficacy indicator. A sample of sixteen patients was randomly chosen from the RCT, and DFI grading was assessed jointly by both non-blinded investigators and blinded center-reading investigators. A consistency test was then deployed to compare the evaluation results, forming the basis for our proposed strategies for effective blinded evaluation. In addition, other perspectives were collected at the end of this study, including with those involved in designing and conducting the recent blinded evaluation trial.
RESULTS: Five subjects were excluded due to the quality of photos or the lack of post-treatment visits. The post-treatment IDSA/IWGDF grading results were compared in 11 subjects (experimental group=6, control group=5), and the consistency test showed inconsistent results between the non-blinded and center reading blinded evaluations (Kappa=0.248, p=0.384). In the experimental group, three cases were judged as grade 1 in the non-blinded evaluation and grade 2 in the central reading blinded evaluation; in the control group, three cases were judged as grade 2 in the non-blinded evaluation and grade 1 in the central reading blinded evaluation. The sum of these two cases in 22 post-treatment determinations was 27% (6/22). Furthermore, researchers propose several strategies for implementing blinded evaluations in clinical trials after this trial, which encompass aspects such as staff allocation, training, participant management, trial drug administration, efficacy indicator collection, and safety event management.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted that evaluations from non-blinded site investigators may potentially exaggerate the efficacy of the experimental group and that deep wounds can present challenges for observation via center-reading photos. These findings underline the vital necessity for objective assessment in open clinical trials, especially those where wound observation serves as the primary efficacy indicator. The study suggests the adoption of independent blinded investigators at each site, complemented by a comprehensive set of standard operating procedures for blinding evaluation. These measures could serve as an effective counterbalance to subjective bias, thereby augmenting the credibility and consistency of results in open clinical trials. The implications of these findings and recommendations could be of great significance for the design and execution of future open clinical trials, potentially bolstering the quality of clinical research in this area.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR2000041443. Registered on December 2020.

To investigate the distribution of microbes and drug susceptibility in patients with diabetic foot infections (DFI) and provide guidance for clinical empirical treatment and the rational selection of antibacterial drugs.
Retrospective analysis of the pathogenic bacterium distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility isolated from 581 DFI patients with different Wagner grades.
The 534 positive samples included 473 cases (88.58%)) of monomicrobial infections and 61 cases (11.42%) of polymicrobial infections before antibiotic therapy. A total of 656 strains were cultivated, including 387 (58.99%) strains of gram-positive organisms (GPOs), 235 (35.82%) gram-negative bacilli (GNB), and 21 (3.20%) fungal strains. Polymicrobial infections mainly occurred in patients with Wagner grade 3-4 ulcers. GPOs were predominant in Wagner grades 1-3 (grade 1: 96.67%, grade 2: 76.52%, grade 3 62.81%), and the most common was Staphylococcus aureus (grade 1: 31.66%, grade 2: 33.04%, grade 3 35.53%). GNB were predominant in grades 4-5 (grade 4: 51.46%, grade 5:60%), and the most common GNB in Wagner grades 4-5 was Proteus (grade 4:27.88%, grade 5: 42.86%), while the most common GPO was Enterococcus (grade 4:34.48%, grade 5:25.00%). Staphylococcus (including MRSA) and Enterococcus were still highly sensitive to vancomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline. Most GNB were still highly sensitive to meropenem, tigecycline, ertapenem, and amikacin. Proteus was most sensitive to amikacin (97.14%), followed by meropenem (92%) and ertapenem (80%).
The distribution of microbes and antimicrobial susceptibility in DFI patients varied with different Wagner grades. The most appropriate antimicrobial therapy should be selected based on the pathogen culture and antimicrobial susceptibility.

暂无摘要。

To investigate the microbial spectrum isolated from foot ulcers among diabetic patients in China, which was conducted to help clinicians choose optimal antibiotics empirically.
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and VIP databases were searched for studies published between 2015 to 2019, that report primary data on diabetic foot infection (DFI) and antibiotic susceptibility in China.
A total of 63 articles about DFI and antibiotic susceptibility tests among diabetic patients in China were included. There were 11,483 patients with an average age of 60.2 ± 10.1 years and a mean course of 10.6 ± 5.0 years between 2010 and 2019, covering most geographical regions of China. The prevalence of Gram-positive (GP) bacteria (43.4%) was lower than that of Gram-negative (GN) (52.4%). The most prevalent pathogens isolated were Staphylococcus aureus (17.7%), Escherichia coli (10.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (6.2%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (5.3%), Enterococcus faecalis (4.9%), and fungus (3.7%). The prevalence of polymicrobial infection was 22.8%. GP bacteria were sensitive to linezolid, vancomycin, and teicoplanin. More than 50% of GN bacteria were resistant to third-generation cephalosporins, while the resistance rates of piperacillin/tazobactam, amikacin, meropenem, and imipenem were relatively low. Among the 6017 strains of the isolated organisms, 20% had multi-drug resistance (MDR). Staphylococcus aureus (30.4%) was the most predominant MDR bacteria, followed by extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) (19.1%).
The microbial infection of foot ulcers among diabetic patients in China is diverse. The microbial spectrum is different in different geographic regions and Staphylococcus aureus is the predominant bacteria. Polymicrobial and MDR bacterial infections on the foot ulcers are common. This study could be valuable in guiding the empirical use of antibiotics for diabetic foot infections.

This retrospective case-control study was designed to explore the association between the duration of diabetes and gram-negative bacterial infection in diabetic foot infections (DFIs). All DFI patients hospitalized in the Department of Endocrinology in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between 2013 and 2019 with positive microbial culture results were included. Cases were defined as DFI patients whose microbial cultures grew gram-negative bacteria (including polymicrobial flora). Controls were defined as DFI patients whose positive microbial cultures did not grow gram-negative bacteria. Clinical data were extracted from the hospital information system. Stabilized inverse probability weighting was used to balance between-group differences at baseline. Confounders were selected using a directed acyclic graph. Missing data were imputed with the multiple imputation of chained equations method. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Ptrend for associations between the duration of diabetes and gram-negative bacterial infection were obtained using binomial logistic regression models. The weighted OR of gram-negative bacterial infection for DFI patients with a moderate duration of diabetes (8~19 years) compared with those with a short duration (0~7 years) was 3.87 (95% CI: 1.15 to 13.07), and the OR for those with a longer duration (20~30 + years) was 7.70 (95% CI: 1.45 to 41.00), and there was a dose-response trend with increasing duration of diabetes (weighted Ptrend = 0.007). The results demonstrated that a long duration of diabetes might be associated with an increased risk of gram-negative bacterial infection in type 2 diabetes patients with DFI.

Diabetic foot ulcer infection (DFI) is an infectious disease of the skin and soft tissue in diabetics notorious for making rapid progress and being hard to cure. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), most frequently detected in DFI, recently was suggested as an intracellular pathogen that can invade and survive within mammalian host cells. Autophagy in macrophages plays a vital immune role in combating intracellular pathogens through bacterial destruction, but there is a lack of empirical research about the infection characteristics and autophagy in diabetic skin infection.
Here, we used streptozotocin-induced Sprague Dawley rats as a diabetic skin wound model to examine the S. aureus clearance ability and wound healing in vitro. Western blot and immunofluorescence staining were used to evaluate the autophagic flux of the macrophages in diabetic rats dermis, even with S. aureus infection.
We demonstrated that infections in diabetic rats appeared more severe and more invasive with weakened pathogen clearance ability of the host immune system, which coincided with the suppressed autophagic flux in dermal macrophages, featured by a significant increase in endogenous LC3II/I and in p62.
Our results first provided convincing evidence that autophagy of macrophages was dysfunctional in diabetes, especially after being infected by S. aureus, which weakens the intracellular killing of S. aureus, potentially worsens the infections, and accelerates the infection spread in the diabetic rat model. Further understanding of the special immune crosstalk between diabetes host and S. aureus infection through autophagic factors will help to explain the complex clinical phenomenon and guarantee the development of effective therapies for diabetic foot infections.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop and evaluate the impact of a new model in which the infectious disease (ID) physician and pharmacist work together to treat diabetic foot infections (DFIs).
METHODS: A quasi-experimental before-after study was conducted. The medical charts of inpatients with DFI admitted between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018 were reviewed retrospectively (control group, n = 30). Inpatients diagnosed with DFI between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019 were enrolled prospectively as the intervention group and received treatment through dedicated ID teamwork (intervention group, n = 35).
RESULTS: The distribution of infection severity and levels of metabolic criteria were similar in the two groups. Compared with the control group, the intervention group received adequate initial empirical treatment more frequently (96.8% vs 43.5%, p < 0.001) and had a shorter median duration of fever (1 day vs 7.5 days, p < 0.001). Rates of healing and relapse within 6 months were similar in the two groups, although the intervention group showed more sites of osteomyelitis (p = 0.036) and a higher percentage of polymicrobial infections (48.6% vs 10.0%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The early and full participation of ID physicians and pharmacists in the treatment of DFI facilitated targeted antimicrobial treatment and improved patient outcomes.