Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Diabetes. Jul 15, 2023; 14(7): 942-957
Published online Jul 15, 2023. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v14.i7.942
Published online Jul 15, 2023. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v14.i7.942
Table 1 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot risk categories[8]
Risk category | Ulcer risk | Characteristics | Frequency |
0 | Very low | No LOPS and no PAD | Once a year |
1 | Low | LOPS or PAD | Once every 6-12 mo |
2 | Moderate | LOPS and PAD, or LOPS and foot deformity, or PAD + foot deformity | Once every 3-6 mo |
3 | High | LOPS or PAD and one of the following: History of foot ulcer, a previous LEA, end-stage renal disease | Once every 1-3 mo |
Table 2 Common bacteria involved in diabetic foot infections according to infection grade, adapted from the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot infection guidelines[47]
IWGDF classification | Recommended empirical cover | ||||
Gram-positive (MSSA, Streptococcus spp.) | Gram-negative (enteric, non-pseudomonal) | Obligate anaerobes | MRSA | Pseudomonal | |
Mild (grade 2) – no recent antibiotics | Yes | No | No | If at risk1 | No |
Mild (grade 2) – recent antibiotics or water-immersed wound | Yes | Yes | Consider if chronic | If at risk1 | No |
Moderate (grade 3) | Yes | Yes | Consider | If at risk1 | Tropical climates or recently cultured |
Severe (grade 4) | Yes | Yes | Yes | If at risk1 | Yes |
Table 3 Spectrum of select antibiotics against common bacteria involved in diabetic foot infections, adapted from the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot infection guidelines[47]
Antibiotic | Antibiotic spectrum | Oral dose frequency | Pill burden (per day) | ||||
Gram-positive (MSSA, Streptococcus spp.) | Gram-negative (enteric, non-pseudomonal) | Obligate anaerobes | MRSA | Pseudomonal | |||
Penicillins, anti-staphylococcal1 | Yes | No | No | No | No | 4 | 4-8 |
Cefalexin | Yes | Some | No | No | No | 4 | 4-8 |
Amoxicillin-clavulanate | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | 2 | 2 |
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | Yes | Yes | No | Some2 | No | 2 | 2 |
Doxycycline | Yes | Some | No | Some2 | No | 2 | 2 |
Clindamycin | Yes | No | Yes | Some2 | No | 3-4 | 9-16 |
Metronidazole3 | No | No | Yes | No | No | 2-3 | 2-3 |
Cefazolin | Yes | Some | No | No | No | ||
Ceftriaxone | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | ||
Piperacillin-tazobactam | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Cefepime | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | ||
Meropenem | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Vancomycin | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | ||
Moxifloxacin | Yes | Yes | Yes | Some2 | No | 1 | 1 |
Ciprofloxacin4 | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | 2 | 2 |
Table 4 Empirical antibiotic choices in diabetes-related foot disease; adapted from the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot infection guidelines[47]
IWGDF classification | Example of Empirical Antibiotic | If MRSA Risk1 |
Mild (grade 2) – no recent antibiotics | Flucloxacillin PO, or cefalexin PO | As a single agent clindamycin PO, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole PO, or doxycycline PO |
Mild (grade 2) – recent antibiotics or water-immersed wound | Amoxicillin-clavulanate PO | Add one of the agents above, OR as a single agent moxifloxacin PO |
Moderate (grade 3) | Amoxicillin-clavulanate PO/IV | Add one of the agents above, or if IV required, add vancomycin IV |
Or cefazolin IV plus metronidazole PO/IV | ||
Or if Pseudomonas risk2, piperacillin-tazobactam IV | ||
Severe (grade 4) | Piperacillin-tazobactam IV | Add vancomycin IV |
- Citation: McNeil S, Waller K, Poy Lorenzo YS, Mateevici OC, Telianidis S, Qi S, Churilov I, MacIsaac RJ, Galligan A. Detection, management, and prevention of diabetes-related foot disease in the Australian context. World J Diabetes 2023; 14(7): 942-957
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9358/full/v14/i7/942.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v14.i7.942