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.

Background: Daptomycin-induced eosinophilic pneumonia (DEP) is a rare but severe adverse effect and the risk factors are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for DEP. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed at the Bone and Joint Infection Unit of the Hospital Universitari Bellvitge (January 2014–December 2018). To identify risk factors for DEP, cases were divided into two groups: those who developed DEP and those without DEP. Results: Among the whole cohort (n = 229) we identified 11 DEP cases (4.8%) and this percentage almost doubled in the subgroup of patients ≥70 years (8.1%). The risk factors for DEP were age ≥70 years (HR 10.19, 95%CI 1.28–80.93), therapy >14 days (7.71, 1.98–30.09) and total cumulative dose of daptomycin ≥10 g (5.30, 1.14–24.66). Conclusions: Clinicians should monitor cumulative daptomycin dosage to minimize DEP risk, and be cautious particularly in older patients when the total dose of daptomycin exceeds 10 g.

Surgical site infection (SSI) after elective orthopedic foot and ankle surgery is uncommon and may be higher in selected patient groups. Our main aim was to investigate the risk factors for SSI in elective orthopedic foot surgery and the microbiological results of SSI in diabetic and non-diabetic patients, in a tertiary foot center between 2014 and 2022. Overall, 6138 elective surgeries were performed with an SSI risk of 1.88%. The main independent associations with SSI in a multivariate logistic regression analysis were an ASA score of 3–4 points, odds ratio (OR) 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.90), internal, OR 2.33 (95% CI 1.56–3.49), and external material, OR 3.08 (95% CI 1.56–6.07), and more than two previous surgeries, OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.93–4.22). Diabetes mellitus showed an increased risk in the univariate analysis, OR 3.94 (95% CI 2.59–5.99), and in the group comparisons (three-fold risk). In the subgroup of diabetic foot patients, a pre-existing diabetic foot ulcer increased the risk for SSI, OR 2.99 (95% CI 1.21–7.41), compared to non-ulcered diabetic patients. In general, gram-positive cocci were the predominant pathogens in SSI. In contrast, polymicrobial infections with gram-negative bacilli were more common in contaminated foot surgeries. In the latter group, the perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis by second-generation cephalosporins did not cover 31% of future SSI pathogens. Additionally, selected groups of patients revealed differences in the microbiology of the SSI. Prospective studies are required to determine the importance of these findings for optimal perioperative antibiotic prophylactic measures.