John M. Embil

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 limbs 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).

2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections a

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

A Critical Review of the Fluoroquinolones

The new fluoroquinolones (clinafloxacin, gatifloxacin, gemifloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin, sparfloxacin and trovafloxacin) offer excellent activity against Gram-negative bacilli and improved Gram-positive activity (e.g. against Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus) over ciprofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin still maintains the best in vitro activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clinafloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin, sparfloxacin and trovafloxacin display improved activity against anaerobes (e.g. Bacteroides fragilis) versus ciprofloxacin. All of the new fluoroquinolones display excellent bioavailability and have longer serum half-lives than ciprofloxacin allowing for once daily dose administration.Clinical trials comparing the new fluoroquinolones to each other or to standard therapy have demonstrated good efficacy in a variety of community-acquired respiratory infections (e.g. pneumonia, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and acute sinusitis). Limited data suggest that the new fluoroquinolones as a class may lead to better outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis versus comparators. Several of these agents have either been withdrawn from the market, had their use severely restricted because of adverse effects (clinafloxacin because of phototoxicity and hypoglycaemia; grepafloxacin because of prolongation of the QTc and resultant torsades de pointes; sparfloxacin because of phototoxicity; and trovafloxacin because of hepatotoxicity), or were discontinued during developmental phases. The remaining fluoroquinolones such as gatifloxacin, gemifloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin have adverse effect profiles similar to ciprofloxacin. Extensive post-marketing safety surveillance data (as are available with ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin) are required for all new fluoroquinolones before safety can be definitively established. Drug interactions are limited; however, all fluoroquinolones interact with metal ion containing drugs (eg. antacids).The new fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin, gemifloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin) offer several advantages over ciprofloxacin and are emerging as important therapeutic agents in the treatment of community-acquired respiratory infections. Their broad spectrum of activity which includes respiratory pathogens such as penicillin and macrolide resistant S. pneumoniae, favourable pharmacokinetic parameters, good bacteriological and clinical efficacy will lead to growing use of these agents in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and acute sinusitis. These agents may result in cost savings especially in situations where, because of their potent broad-spectrum activity and excellent bioavailability, they may be used orally in place of intravenous antibacterials. Prudent use of the new fluoroquinolones will be required to minimise the development of resistance to these agents.

Review of macrolides and ketolides: focus on respiratory tract infections.

The first macrolide, erythromycin A, demonstrated broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and was used primarily for respiratory and skin and soft tissue infections. Newer 14-, 15- and 16-membered ring macrolides such as clarithromycin and the azalide, azithromycin, have been developed to address the limitations of erythromycin.The main structural component of the macrolides is a large lactone ring that varies in size from 12 to 16 atoms. A new group of 14-membered macrolides known as the ketolides have recently been developed which have a 3-keto in place of the L-cladinose moiety. Macrolides reversibly bind to the 23S rRNA and thus, inhibit protein synthesis by blocking elongation. The ketolides have also been reported to bind to 23S rRNA and their mechanism of action is similar to that of macrolides. Macrolide resistance mechanisms include target site alteration, alteration in antibiotic transport and modification of the antibiotic.The macrolides and ketolides exhibit good activity against Gram-positive aerobes and some Gram-negative aerobes. Ketolides have excellent activity versus macrolide-resistant Streptococcus spp. Including mefA and ermB producing Streptococcus pneumoniae. The newer macrolides, such as azithromycin and clarithromycin, and the ketolides exhibit greater activity against Haemophilus influenzae than erythromycin.The bioavailability of macrolides ranges from 25 to 85%, with corresponding serum concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 12 mg/L and area under the concentrationtime curves from 3 to 115 mg/L ⋅ h. Half-lives range from short for erythromycin to medium for clarithromycin, roxithromycin and ketolides, to very long for dirithromycin and azithromycin. All of these agents display large volumes of distribution with excellent uptake into respiratory tissues and fluids relative to serum. The majority of the agents are hepatically metabolised and excretion in the urine is limited, with the exception of clarithromycin.Clinical trials involving the macrolides are available for various respiratory infections. In general, macrolides are the preferred treatment for communityacquired pneumonia and alternative treatment for other respiratory infections. These agents are frequently used in patients with penicillin allergies. The macrolides are well-tolerated agents. Macrolides are divided into 3 groups for likely occurrence of drug-drug interactions: group 1 (e.g. erythromycin) are frequently involved, group 2 (e.g. clarithromycin, roxithromycin) are less commonly involved, whereas drug interactions have not been described for group 3 (e.g. azithromycin, dirithromycin).Few pharmacoeconomic studies involving macrolides are presently available. The ketolides are being developed in an attempt to address the increasingly prevalent problems of macrolide-resistant and multiresistant organisms.

The glycylcyclines: A comparative review with the tetracyclines

The tetracycline class of antimicrobials exhibit a broad-spectrum of activity against numerous pathogens, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, as well as atypical organisms. These compounds are bacteriostatic, and act by binding to the bacterial 30S ribosomal subunit and inhibiting protein synthesis. The tetracyclines have been used successfully for the treatment of a variety of infectious diseases including community-acquired respiratory tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, as well in the management of acne. The use of tetracyclines for treating bacterial infections has been limited in recent years because of the emergence of resistant organisms with efflux and ribosomal protection mechanisms of resistance. Research to find tetracycline analogues that circumvented these resistance mechanisms has lead to the development of the glycylcyclines.The most developed glycylcycline is the 9-tert-butyl-glycylamido derivative of minocycline, otherwise known as tigecycline (GAR-936). The glycylcyclines exhibit antibacterial activities typical of earlier tetracyclines, but with more potent activity against tetracycline-resistant organisms with efflux and ribosomal protection mechanisms of resistance. The glycylcyclines are active against other resistant pathogens including methicillin-resistant staphylococci, penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci.Tigecycline is only available in an injectable formulation for clinical use unlike currently marketed tetracyclines that are available in oral dosage forms. Tigecycline has a significantly larger volume of distribution (>10 L/kg) than the other tetracyclines (range of 0.14 to 1.6 L/kg). Protein binding is approximately 68%. Presently no human data are available describing the tissue penetration of tigecycline, although studies in rats using radiolabelled tigecycline demonstrated good penetration into tissues. Tigecycline has a half-life of 36 hours in humans, less than 15% of tigecycline is excreted unchanged in the urine. On the basis of available data, it does not appear that the pharmacokinetics of tigecycline are markedly influenced by patient gender or age.The pharmacodynamic parameter that best correlates with bacteriological eradication is time above minimum inhibitory concentration. Several animal studies have been published describing the efficacy of tigecycline. Human phase 1 and 2 clinical trials have been completed for tigecycline. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections, and in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections have been published as abstracts. Both studies concluded that tigecycline was efficacious and well tolerated. Few human data are available regarding the adverse effects or drug interactions resulting from tigecycline therapy; however, preliminary data report that tigecycline can be safely used, is well tolerated and that the adverse effects experienced were typical of the tetracyclines (i.e. nausea, vomiting and headache).Tigecycline appears to be a promising new antibacterial based on in vitro and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic activity; however more clinical data are needed to fully evaluate its potential.

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) (Table 1). 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). Table 1. Infectious Diseases Society of America–United States Public Health Service Grading System for Ranking Recommendations in Clinical Guidelines

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report on diagnosis and a systematic review of treatment†

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot appointed an expert panel to provide evidence‐based guidance on the management of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Initially, the panel formulated a consensus scheme for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) for research purposes, and undertook a systematic review of the evidence relating to treatment. The consensus diagnostic scheme was based on expert opinion; the systematic review was based on a search for reports of the effectiveness of treatment for DFO published prior to December 2006.

The ketolides: a critical review.

Ketolides are a new class of macrolides designed particularly to combat respiratory tract pathogens that have acquired resistance to macrolides. The ketolides are semi-synthetic derivatives of the 14-membered macrolide erythromycin A, and retain the erythromycin macrolactone ring structure as well as the D-desosamine sugar attached at position 5. The defining characteristic of the ketolides is the removal of the neutral sugar, L-cladinose from the 3 position of the ring and the subsequent oxidation of the 3-hydroxyl to a 3-keto functional group. The ketolides presently under development additionally contain an 11, 12 cyclic carbamate linkage in place of the two hydroxyl groups of erythromycin A and an arylalkyl or an arylallyl chain, imparting in vitro activity equal to or better than the newer macrolides.Telithromycin is the first member of this new class to be approved for clinical use, while ABT-773 is presently in phase III of development. Ketolides have a mechanism of action very similar to erythromycin A from which they have been derived. They potently inhibit protein synthesis by interacting close to the peptidyl transferase site of the bacterial 50S ribosomal subunit. Ketolides bind to ribosomes with higher affinity than macrolides.The ketolides exhibit good activity against Gram-positive aerobes and some Gram-negative aerobes, and have excellent activity against drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, including macrolide-resistant (mefA and ermB strains of S. pneumoniae). Ketolides such as telithromycin display excellent pharmacokinetics allowing once daily dose administration and extensive tissue distribution relative to serum. Evidence suggests the ketolides are primarily metabolised in the liver and that elimination is by a combination of biliary, hepatic and urinary excretion. Pharmacodynamically, ketolides display an element of concentration dependent killing unlike macrolides which are considered time dependent killers.Clinical trial data are only available for telithromycin and have focused on respiratory infections including community-acquired pneumonia, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, sinusitis and streptococcal pharyngitis. Bacteriological and clinical cure rates have been similar to comparators. Limited data suggest very good eradication of macrolide-resistant and penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae. As a class, the macrolides are well tolerated and can be used safely. Limited clinical trial data suggest that ketolides have similar safety profiles to the newer macrolides. Telithromycin interacts with the cytochrome P450 enzyme system (specifically CYP 3A4) in a reversible fashion and limited clinically significant drug interactions occur.In summary, clinical trials support the clinical efficacy of the ketolides in upper and lower respiratory tract infections caused by typical and atypical pathogens including strains resistant to penicillins and macrolides. Considerations such as local epidemiology, patterns of resistance and ketolide adverse effects, drug interactions and cost relative to existing agents will define the role of these agents. The addition of the ketolides in the era of antibacterial resistance provides clinicians with more options in the treatment of respiratory infections.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in tertiary care institutions on the Canadian prairies 1990-1992.

OBJECTIVE To review experience with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in tertiary acute-care teaching hospitals on the Canadian prairies. DESIGN Retrospective review for a 36-month period, 1990 through 1992. SETTING Five tertiary acute-care teaching hospitals in three Canadian prairie provinces. METHODS MRSA isolates and susceptibility were identified through the clinical microbiology laboratory at each institution. For each patient, data collected included duration of institutional residence prior to isolation, patient ethnic background, age, sex, and antimicrobial susceptibility. Epidemiologic typing of strains used restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. RESULTS Two hundred fifty-nine MRSA isolates were identified in 135 patients during the 36 months, with substantial institutional variation in number of isolates. No consistent increase in yearly numbers of isolates was apparent. Patients usually had MRSA identified at admission (62%); only one of five centers had the majority of isolates acquired nosocomially. Patients with MRSA present at admission were more frequently of aboriginal (First Nations) ethnicity (62% compared with 14% of nosocomial; P < 0.001). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of 167 isolates from 135 patients revealed 46 different strains with little interprovincial or interinstitutional identity of strains. CONCLUSIONS MRSA isolated in patients in tertiary care institutions in these three Canadian provinces usually is acquired prior to admission. A disproportionate number of isolates are identified in aboriginal Canadians. Epidemiologic typing was consistent with a polyclonal origin of MRSA in this geographic area.

Recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (becaplermin) for healing chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers: an open-label clinical evaluation of efficacy

Topically applied recombinant human platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB (becaplermin) is a new pharmacologically active therapy for chronic, neuropathic, lower extremity diabetic ulcers. In previous studies, becaplermin gel was administered once daily but dressings were changed twice daily. In the present study of 134 patients with diabetes mellitus and full thickness lower extremity ulcers, dressings were changed only once per day, simplifying the treatment regimen. Efficacy criteria included the percentage of patients achieving complete healing within the 20‐week treatment period, the time to achieve complete healing, the rate of ulcer recurrence during the 6‐month period following healing, and treatment compliance. Complete healing of ulcers was achieved in 57.5% of patients, with a mean time to closure of 63 days and a recurrence rate of 21% at 6 months. Of the potential factors affecting ulcer healing, only drug compliance (p < 0.001), dressing compliance (p < 0.01), the presence of infection (p < 0.01), baseline ulcer area (p < 0.05), and baseline total wound evaluation score (p < 0.05) were significantly associated with healing. Results of this study further confirm the efficacy and safety of becaplermin gel for the treatment of lower extremity diabetic ulcers.