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.

Key message 2: diabetes and its consequences are costly to patients and economies We estimate that, in 2015, the overall cost of diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa was US$19•45 billion or 1•2% of cumulative gross domestic product (GDP). Around $10•81 billion (55•6%) of this cost arose from direct costs, which included expenditure on diabetes treatment (eg, medication, hospital stays, and treatment of complications), with out-of-pocket expenditure likely to exceed 50% of the overall health expenditure in many countries. We estimate that the total cost will increase to between $35•33 billion (1•1% of GDP) and $59•32 billion (1•8% of GDP) by 2030. Putting in place systems to prevent, detect, and manage hyperglycaemia and its consequences is therefore warranted from a health economics perspective. Key message 3: health systems in countries in sub-Saharan Africa are unable to cope with the current burden of diabetes and its complications By use of information from WHO Service Availability Readiness Assessment surveys and World Bank Service Delivery Indicator surveys and the local knowledge of Commissioners, we found inadequacies at all levels of the health system required to provide adequate management for diabetes and its associated risk factors and sequelae. We found inadequate availability of simple equipment for diagnosis and monitoring, a lack of sufficiently knowledgable health-care providers, insufficient availability of treatments, a dearth of locally appropriate guidelines, and few disease registries. These inadequacies result in a substantial dropoff of patients along the diabetes care cascade, with many patients going undiagnosed and with those who are diagnosed not receiving the advice and drugs they need. We also noted scarce facilities to manage the microvascular and macro vascular complications of diabetes. Additionally, despite calls for adding the care of diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors onto existing infectious disease programmes (such as those for HIV), we found little evidence that such combined programmes are successful at improving outcomes.

OBJECTIVEThere is a dearth of long-term data regarding patient and limb survival in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). The purpose of our study was therefore to prospectively investigate the limb and person survival of DFU patients during a follow-up period of more than 10 years.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSTwo hundred forty-seven patients with DFUs and without previous major amputation consecutively presenting to a single diabetes center between June 1998 and December 1999 were included in this study and followed up until May 2011. Mean patient age was 68.8 ± 10.9 years, 58.7% were male, and 55.5% had peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Times to first major amputation and to death were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox multiple regression.RESULTSA first major amputation occurred in 38 patients (15.4%) during follow-up. All but one of these patients had evidence of PAD at inclusion in the study, and 51.4% had severe PAD [ankle-brachial pressure index ≤0.4]). Age (hazard ratio [HR] per year, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.01–1.10]), being on dialysis (3.51 [1.02–12.07]), and PAD (35.34 [4.81–259.79]) were significant predictors for first major amputation. Cumulative mortalities at years 1, 3, 5, and 10 were 15.4, 33.1, 45.8, and 70.4%, respectively. Significant predictors for death were age (HR per year, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.06–1.10]), male sex ([1.18–2.32]), chronic renal insufficiency (1.83 [1.25–2.66]), dialysis (6.43 [3.14–13.16]), and PAD (1.44 [1.05–1.98]).CONCLUSIONSAlthough long-term limb salvage in this modern series of diabetic foot patients is favorable, long-term survival remains poor, especially among patients with PAD or renal insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE—To compare populations with and outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers managed in the U.K., Germany, Tanzania, and Pakistan and to explore the use of a new score of ulcer type in comparing outcomes among different countries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Data from a series of 449 patients with diabetic foot ulcers managed in the U.K. were used to evaluate the new simplified system of classification and to derive an aggregate score. The use of the score was then explored using data from series managed in Germany (n = 239), Tanzania (n = 479), and Pakistan (n = 173). RESULTS—A highly significant difference was found in time to healing between ulcers of increasing score in the U.K. series (Kruskal-Wallis test; P = 0). When data from all centers were examined, a step-up in days to healing was noted for those with scores of ≥3 (out of 6). Examination of baseline variables contributing to outcome revealed the following differences among centers: ischemia, ulcer area, and depth contributing to outcome in the U.K.; ischemia, area, depth, and infection in Germany; depth, infection, and neuropathy in Tanzania; and depth alone in Pakistan. CONCLUSIONS—Any system of classification designed for general implementation must encompass all the variables that contribute to outcome in different communities. Adoption of a simple score based on these variables, the Site, Ischemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection, and Depth (SINBAD) score, may prove useful in predicting ulcer outcome and enabling comparison among different centers.

Most estimates in the literature for the economic cost of treating a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) are from industrialized countries. There is also marked heterogeneity between the complexity of cases considered in the different studies. The goal of the present article was to estimate treatment costs and costs to patients in five different countries (Chile, China, India, Tanzania, and the United States) for two hypothetical, but well-defined, DFUs at the extreme ends of the complexity spectrum. A co-author, who is a treating physician in the relevant country, was asked to choose treatment plans that represented the typical application of local resources to the DFU. The outcomes were pre-defined as complete healing in case 1 and trans-tibial amputation in case 2, but the time course of treatment was determined by each investigator in a manner that would be typical for their clinic. The costs, in local currencies, for each course of treatment were estimated with the assistance of local hospital administrators. Typical reimbursement scenarios in each country were used to estimate the cost burden to the patient, which was then expressed as a percentage of the annual per capita purchasing power parity-adjusted gross domestic product. There were marked differences in the treatment plans between countries based on the availability of resources and the realities of local conditions. The costs of treatment for case 1 ranged from Int$102 to Int$3959 in Tanzania and in the United States, respectively. The cost for case 2 ranged from Int$3060 to Int$188 645 in Tanzania and in the United States, respectively. The cost burden to the patient varied from the equivalent of 6 days of average income in the United States for case 1 to 5.7 years of average annual income for case 2 in India. Although these findings do not take cost-effectiveness into account, they highlight the dramatic economic burden of a DFU for patients in some countries.