4.7 Article

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

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 302-307

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1514

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVELittle is known about the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). This study sought to compare the effectiveness of 6 versus 12 weeks of antibiotic therapy in patients with DFO treated nonsurgically (i.e., antibiotics alone).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis was a 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 (>4 weeks) healing of the wound (if present initially), absence of recurrent infection at the initial site or that of adjacent rays, and no need for surgical bone resection or amputation at the end of a follow-up period of at least 12 months after completion of antibiotic treatment.RESULTSForty patients followed at five French general hospitals were randomized between January 2007 and January 2009, with 20 treated for 6 weeks and 20 treated for 12 weeks with antibiotics. The two groups were comparable for all variables recorded at inclusion in the study. Remission was obtained in 26 (65%) patients, with no significant differences between patients treated for 6 versus 12 weeks (12/20 vs. 14/20, respectively; P = 0.50). We did not identify any significant parameters associated with patient outcome. Fewer patients treated for 6 weeks experienced gastrointestinal adverse events related to antimicrobial therapy compared with patients treated for 12 weeks (respectively, 15 vs. 45%; P = 0.04).CONCLUSIONSThe present multicenter prospective randomized study provides data suggesting that 6-week duration of antibiotic therapy may be sufficient in patients with DFO for whom nonsurgical treatment is considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据