Background Diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of poorly controlled diabetes and often become infected, termed diabetic foot infection. There have been numerous studies of the microbiology of diabetic foot infection but no meta-analysis has provided a global overview of these data. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of bacteria isolated from diabetic foot infections using studies of any design which reported diabetic foot infection culture results. Methods The Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS electronic databases were searched for studies published up to 2019 which contained microbiological culture results from at least 10 diabetic foot infection patients. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted the data. The main outcome was the prevalence of each bacterial genera or species. Results A total of 112 studies were included, representing 16,159 patients from which 22,198 microbial isolates were obtained. The organism most commonly identified was Staphylococcus aureus, of which 18.0% (95% CI 13.8–22.6%; I2 = 93.8% [93.0–94.5%]) was MRSA. Other highly prevalent organisms were Pseudomonas spp., E. coli and Enterococcus spp. A correlation was identified between Gross National Income and the prevalence of Gram positive or negative organisms in diabetic foot infections. Conclusion The microbiology of diabetic foot infections is diverse, but S. aureus predominates. The correlation between the prevalence of Gram positive and negative organisms and Gross National Income could reflect differences in healthcare provision and sanitation. This meta-analysis has synthesised multiple datasets to provide a global overview of the microbiology of diabetic foot infections that will help direct the development of novel therapeutics.

Background: This study represents the first Scottish retrospective analysis of the microbiology of diabetic foot infections (DFIs). The aims were to compare the microbiological profile of DFIs treated at a Scottish tertiary hospital to that in the literature, gather data regarding antimicrobial resistance and investigate potential trends between the microbiological results and nature or site of the clinical sample taken and age or gender of the patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of wound microbiology results was performed, data were obtained from one multidisciplinary outpatient foot clinic during the 12 months of the year 2017. Seventy-three patients and 200 microbiological investigations were included. In cases of soft tissue infection, the deepest part of a cleansed and debrided wound was sampled. In cases of osteomyelitis a bone biopsy was obtained. Factors influencing the pattern of microbial growth or prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus were investigated.Results: Of the 200 microbiological investigations, 62% were culture positive, of which 37.9% were polymicrobial and 62.1% monomicrobial. Among the monomicrobial results (n = 77), most were Gram positive isolates (96.1%) and the most frequently isolated bacteria was S. aureus (84.4%). No methicillinresistant S. aureus was reported. The prevalence of S. aureus in DFIs was associated with increasing age (p = 0.021), but no evidence of association with gender, anatomical sample site or sample material was found. Conclusion: The microbiological profile of DFIs in Scotland resembles that reported elsewhere in the UK. In this context, Gram positive organisms, primarily S. aureus, are most frequently isolated from DFIs. The S. aureus isolates identified were largely susceptible to antibiotic therapy. An association between increasing patient age and the prevalence of S. aureus in DFIs was observed.

Infections of diabetic foot ulcers are common, generally recalcitrant and often complicated by antibiotic resistance. Alternative antimicrobial strategies are needed. Phage therapy is a promising alternative that is being rediscovered. Despite phage therapy’s 100-year history, there have been no investigations into patient thoughts and concerns. This study aimed to explore patient awareness of and concern about antibiotic resistance and gain insight into the perceptions of phage therapy among a patient group that could potentially benefit from phage therapy. Patients with an active or resolved (healed or amputated) diabetic foot ulcer were eligible to participate. A survey was distributed digitally to eligible patients across Scotland via the NHS Research Scotland Diabetes Network and hard copies were available in diabetic foot clinics at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow. A focus group of five survey respondents was held in Glasgow. Fifty-five survey responses were obtained. There was a high level of awareness (76.4%; N = 55) and concern (83.3%; N = 54) about antibiotic resistance. While largely aware of viruses, most patients had not heard of phage or phage therapy. Patients were no more concerned about phage than antibiotic therapy, with most suggesting more information could alleviate any concerns. Patient acceptability of phage therapy was high, a finding confirmed by the focus group. Patients are concerned about antibiotic resistance and supportive of ‘new’ antimicrobials. We have demonstrated that patients are supportive, enthusiastic and accepting of phage therapy. Although ‘Western’ phage therapy remains in its infancy, an understanding of patient ideas, concerns and expectations will be important in eventually shaping and successfully reintroducing phage therapy.

Twelve healthy young male subjects received either cefixime, a new oral cephalosporin (CL 284,635), or cefaclor (six subjects on each drug) orally for 2 weeks. In the case of cefixime, single daily doses of 400 mg were taken; with cefaclor, the dosage was 250 mg three times daily. Modest changes in the fecal flora were noted in both drug groups, but the changes were of different types. In the case of cefixime, there was more of an impact on the indigenous flora, and in the case of cefaclor, there was more ingrowth of new flora. With cefixime, Enterobacteriaceae were usually decreased (the decrease in Escherichia coli count was statistically significant), as were counts of clostridia and sometimes Bifidobacterium spp.; the Bacteroides fragilis group was eliminated in one subject. Coincident with these decreases, four subjects had increases in counts of group D streptococci of 3 logs or more. There was new appearance of Clostridium difficile in four subjects and of Staphylococcus aureus in one; four new strains of Enterobacteriaceae appeared. With cefaclor, there was no decrease of E. coli counts; two subjects had elimination of Bifidobacterium spp. There was little change in counts of group D streptococci. On the other hand, there were 13 new strains of Enterobacteriaceae, two of S. aureus, and three of C. difficile.