title: Do diabetic foot infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus differ from those with other pathogens?
abstract: There is controversy as to whether or not diabetic foot infections (DFIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are associated with worse outcomes than DFIs caused by other pathogens. To address this issue we performed a nonsystematic literature search of published articles in English language journals seeking studies reporting on the outcomes of DFIs related to their microbiology. We retrieved 48 articles published from 1999 to 2013 that described a total of 7771 cases of DFI. The overall proportion of DFIs with an isolate of S aureus was about 30%; just over one third of these (11% of all cases) were MRSA strains. Among the DFI cases caused by MRSA 1543 were episodes of soft tissue infections and 113 of osteomyelitis, while non-MRSA organisms caused 5761 soft tissue infections and 354 cases of osteomyelitis. Only 5 of the included articles attempted a comparison between DFI caused by MRSA and those caused by other pathogens, with no clear differences noted. The median total duration of antibiotic therapy for DFI caused by MRSA was 26 days, of which a median of 10 days was given intravenously. Only a few articles reported the proportion of patients with a recurrence, but they often did not differentiate between MRSA and non-MRSA cases. Four publications reported a worse functional or microbiological outcome in MRSA, compared to non-MRSA, cases, but the findings were variable and differences did not seem to be significant. Many trials failed to adjust for case-mix or to definitively demonstrate a relationship between microbiology and outcomes. Few of the articles specifically commented on whether the MRSA isolates were health care- or community-acquired strains. Notwithstanding the substantial limitations of the available literature, there does not appear to be a need for any special treatment for DFI caused by MRSA. The current guidelines for treating according to established international recommendations seem appropriate.
authors.affiliation: Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Besa
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Zenelaj
authors.affiliation: Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Cindy
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bouvet
authors.affiliation: Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Benjamin A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Lipsky
authors.affiliation: Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland ilker.uckay@hcuge.ch.
authors.forename: Ilker
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Uçkay
mesh_terms: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D017719:Diabetic Foot / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000382:microbiology / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D055624:Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus / Q000187:drug effects / Q000302:isolation & purification; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D012008:Recurrence; D013203:Staphylococcal Infections / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000503:physiopathology
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents
keywords: MRSA; Staphylococcus aureus; diabetic foot infection; review; treatment