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.

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

These guidelines were developed and issued on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. a B.A.L. served as the chairman and A.R.B. served as the vice chairman of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines Committee on Diabetic Foot Infections.b Deceased.

Recommendations Classification/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...

SummaryThe 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 panel reached consensus on a proposed scheme that assesses the probability of DFO, based on clinical findings and the results of imaging and laboratory investigations.The literature review identified 1168 papers, 19 of which fulfilled criteria for detailed data extraction. No significant differences in outcome were associated with any particular treatment strategy. There was no evidence that surgical debridement of the infected bone is routinely necessary. Culture and sensitivity of isolates from bone biopsy may assist in selecting properly targeted antibiotic regimens, but empirical regimens should include agents active against staphylococci, administered either intravenously or orally (with a highly bioavailable agent). There are no data to support the superiority of any particular route of delivery of systemic antibiotics or to inform the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy. No available evidence supports the use of any adjunctive therapies, such as hyperbaric oxygen, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor or larvae.We have proposed a scheme for diagnosing DFO for research purposes. Data to inform treatment choices in DFO are limited, and further research is urgently needed.

SummaryThis update of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot incorporates some information from a related review of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) and a systematic review of the management of infection of the diabetic foot. The pathophysiology of these infections is now well understood, and there is a validated system for classifying the severity of infections based on their clinical findings. Diagnosing osteomyelitis remains difficult, but several recent publications have clarified the role of clinical, laboratory and imaging tests. Magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as the most accurate means of diagnosing bone infection, but bone biopsy for culture and histopathology remains the criterion standard. Determining the organisms responsible for a diabetic foot infection via culture of appropriately collected tissue specimens enables clinicians to make optimal antibiotic choices based on culture and sensitivity results. In addition to culture-directed antibiotic therapy, most infections require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor debridement to major resection, amputation or revascularization. Clinicians must also provide proper wound care to ensure healing of the wound. Various adjunctive therapies may benefit some patients, but the data supporting them are weak. If properly treated, most diabetic foot infections can be cured. Providers practising in developing countries, and their patients, face especially challenging situations.

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.

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.