9
Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study Featured Article: Alina Tone, Sophie Nguyen, Fabrice Devemy, Hélène Topolinski, Michel Valette, Marie Cazaubiel, Armelle Fayard, Éric Beltrand, Christine Lemaire, and Éric Senneville Diabetes Care Volume 38: 302-30 7 February, 2015

Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic

Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Featured Article:

Alina Tone, Sophie Nguyen, Fabrice Devemy, Hélène Topolinski, Michel Valette, Marie Cazaubiel, Armelle Fayard, Éric Beltrand, Christine

Lemaire, and Éric Senneville

Diabetes Care Volume 38: 302-307

February, 2015

Page 2: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE 

• To compare the effectiveness of 6 versus 12 weeks of antibiotic therapy in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO)

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 3: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

• Prospective randomized trial comparing 6- versus 12-week duration of antibiotic treatment

• Remission of osteomyelitis during the monitoring period was defined as:

• Complete and persistent healing of the wound• Absence of recurrent infection at the initial site or that of

adjacent rays• No need for surgical bone resection or amputation at the

end of follow-up period

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 4: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

RESULTS

• 40 patients at five French general hospitals were randomized between January 2007 and January 2009

• 20 treated for 6 weeks and 20 treated for 12 weeks with antibiotics

• The two groups were comparable for all variables recorded at study inclusion

• Remission was obtained in 26 patients, with no significant differences between patients treated for 6 versus 12 weeks

• No significant parameters associated with patient outcome were identified

• Fewer patients treated for 6 weeks experienced gastrointestinal adverse events related to antimicrobial therapy compared with patients treated for 12 weeks

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 5: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 6: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 7: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

CONCLUSIONS

• 6-week duration of antibiotic therapy may be sufficient in patients with DFO for whom nonsurgical treatment is considered

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 8: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307

Page 9: Six-Week Versus Twelve-Week Antibiotic Therapy for Nonsurgically Treated Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Multicenter Open-Label Controlled Randomized Study

Tone A. et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:302-307