Empirical therapy for diabetic foot infections: are there clinical clues to guide antibiotic selection?

TL;DR: The results suggest that neither patient demographics nor wound type influenced the bacterial composition of the chronic wound microbiome, indicating that empiric antibiotic selection need not be based on nor altered for wound type.

TL;DR: Ceftobiprole monotherapy is as effective as vancomycin plus ceftazidime for treating patients with a broad range of complicated skin and skin-structure infections and infections due to gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria.

TL;DR: All clinicians regularly seeing people with diabetes should have an understanding of how to prevent, diagnose and treat foot infections, which requires familiarity with the pathophysiology of the problem and the literature supporting currently recommended care.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors classify diabetic foot infections into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations).

TL;DR: Linezolid was at least as effective as aminopenicillin/beta-lactamase inhibitors for treating foot infections in diabetic patients.

TL;DR: Previously untreated lower-extremity infections in diabetic patients are usually caused by aerobic gram-positive cocci, and generally respond well to outpatient management with oral antibiotic therapy.

TL;DR: Treatment trials are reviewed and suitable antibiotic regimens commensurate with the severity of infection are proposed.

TL;DR: Treatment covering anaerobic bacteria is included in most empirical regimens, but the use of agents that are modestly active against anaerilic organisms (i.e., fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) has also been successful and surgical debridement and drainage are essential adjuncts to antimicrobial therapy and may assist in the control of anaerobia infection.