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.

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...

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.

Summary The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot expert panel on infection conducted a systematic review of the published evidence relating to treatment of foot infection in diabetes. Our search of the literature published prior to August 2010 identified 7517 articles, 29 of which fulfilled predefined criteria for detailed data extraction. Four additional eligible papers were identified from other sources. Of the total of 33 studies, 29 were randomized controlled trials, and four were cohort studies. Among 12 studies comparing different antibiotic regimens in the management of skin and soft‐tissue infection, none reported a better response with any particular regimen. Of seven studies that compared antibiotic regimens in patients with infection involving both soft tissue and bone, one reported a better clinical outcome in those treated with cefoxitin compared with ampicillin/sulbactam, but the others reported no differences between treatment regimens. In two health economic analyses, there was a small saving using one regimen versus another. No published data support the superiority of any particular route of delivery of systemic antibiotics or clarify the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in either soft‐tissue infection or osteomyelitis. In one non‐randomized cohort study, the outcome of treatment of osteomyelitis was better when the antibiotic choice was based on culture of bone specimens as opposed to wound swabs, but this study was not randomized, and the results may have been affected by confounding factors. Results from two studies suggested that early surgical intervention was associated with a significant reduction in major amputation, but the methodological quality of both was low. In two studies, the use of superoxidized water was associated with a better outcome than soap or povidone iodine, but both had a high risk of bias. Studies using granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor reported mixed results. There was no improvement in infection outcomes associated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. No benefit has been reported with any other intervention, and, overall, there are currently no trial data to justify the adoption of any particular therapeutic approach in diabetic patients with infection of either soft tissue or bone of the foot. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.