Along with the increasing global burden of diabetes, diabetic foot infections (DFI) and diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) remain major challenges for patients and society. Despite progress in the development of prominent international guidelines, the optimal medical treatment for DFI and DFO remains unclear as to whether local antibiotics, that is, topical agents and local delivery systems, should be used alone or concomitant to conventional systemic antibiotics. To better inform clinicians in this evolving field, we performed a narrative review and summarized key relevant observational studies and clinical trials of non-prophylactic local antibiotics for the treatment of DFI and DFO, both alone and in combination with systemic antibiotics. We searched PubMed for studies published between January 2000 and October 2022, identified 388 potentially eligible records, and included 19 studies. Our findings highlight that evidence for adding local antibiotic delivery systems to standard DFO treatment remains limited. Furthermore, we found that so far, local antibiotic interventions have mainly targeted forefoot DFO, although there is marked variation in the design of the included studies. Suggestive evidence emerging from observational studies underscores that the addition of local agents to conventional systemic antibiotics might help to shorten the clinical healing time and overall recovery rates in infected diabetic foot ulcers, although the effectiveness of local antibiotics as a standalone approach remains overlooked. In conclusion, despite the heterogeneous body of evidence, the possibility that the addition of local antibiotics to conventional systemic treatment may improve outcomes in DFI and DFO cannot be ruled out. Antibiotic stewardship principles call for further research to elucidate the potential benefits of local antibiotics alone and in combination with conventional systemic antibiotics for the treatment of DFI and DFO.

Objectives: To describe and assess the risk of bias of the primary input studies that underpinned the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019 modelled prevalence estimates of low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and knee osteoarthritis (OA), from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland. To evaluate the certainty of the GBD modelled prevalence evidence.Methods: Primary studies were identified using the GBD Data Input Sources Tool and their risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool. We rated the certainty of modelled prevalence estimates based on the GRADE Guidelines 30―the GRADE approach for modelled evidence.Results: Seventy-two primary studies (LBP: 67, NP: 2, knee OA: 3) underpinned the GBD estimates. Most studies had limited representativeness of their study populations, used suboptimal case definitions and applied assessment instruments with unknown psychometric properties. The certainty of modelled prevalence estimates was low, mainly due to risk of bias and indirectness.Conclusion: Beyond the risk of bias of primary input studies for LBP, NP, and knee OA in GBD 2019, the certainty of country-specific modelled prevalence estimates still have room for improvement.

No abstract