Variation in antibiotic treatment for diabetic patients with serious foot infections: A retrospective observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetic foot infections are common, serious, and diverse. There is uncertainty about optimal antibiotic treatment, and probably substantial variation in practice. Our aim was to document whether this is the case: A finding that would raise questions about the comparative cost-effectiveness of different regimens and also open the possibility of examining costs and outcomes to determine which should be preferred.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Diabetes Epidemiology Cohorts (DEpiC) database to conduct a retrospective observational study of hospitalized patients with diabetic foot infections. DEpiC contains computerized VA and Medicare patient-level data for VA patients with diabetes since 1998, including demographics, ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes, antibiotics prescribed, and VA facility. We identified all patients with ICD-9-CM codes for cellulitis/abscess of the foot and then sub-grouped them according to whether they had cellulitis/abscess plus codes for gangrene, osteomyelitis, skin ulcer, or none of these. For each facility, we determined: 1) The proportion of patients treated with an antibiotic and the initial route of administration; 2) The first antibiotic regimen prescribed for each patient, defined as treatment with the same antibiotic, or combination of antibiotics, for at least 5 continuous days; and 3) The antibacterial spectrum of the first regimen.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 3,792 patients with cellulitis/abscess of the foot either alone (16.4%), or with ulcer (32.6%), osteomyelitis (19.0%) or gangrene (32.0%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 98.9%. At least 5 continuous days of treatment with an unchanged regimen of one or more antibiotics was prescribed for 59.3%. The means and (ranges) across facilities of the three most common regimens were: 16.4%, (22.8%); 15.7%, (36.1%); and 10.8%, (50.5%). The range of variation across facilities proved substantially greater than that across the different categories of foot infection. We found similar variation in the spectrum of the antibiotic regimen.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The large variations in regimen appear to reflect differences in facility practice styles rather than case mix. It is unlikely that all regimens are equally cost-effective. Our methods make possible evaluation of many regimens across many facilities, and can be applied in further studies to determine which antibiotic regimens should be preferred.</p

Demographic, clinical and antibody characteristics of patients with digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis: data from the DUO Registry

OBJECTIVES: The Digital Ulcers Outcome (DUO) Registry was designed to describe the clinical and antibody characteristics, disease course and outcomes of patients with digital ulcers associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: The DUO Registry is a European, prospective, multicentre, observational, registry of SSc patients with ongoing digital ulcer disease, irrespective of treatment regimen. Data collected included demographics, SSc duration, SSc subset, internal organ manifestations, autoantibodies, previous and ongoing interventions and complications related to digital ulcers. RESULTS: Up to 19 November 2010 a total of 2439 patients had enrolled into the registry. Most were classified as either limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc; 52.2%) or diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc; 36.9%). Digital ulcers developed earlier in patients with dcSSc compared with lcSSc. Almost all patients (95.7%) tested positive for antinuclear antibodies, 45.2% for anti-scleroderma-70 and 43.6% for anticentromere antibodies (ACA). The first digital ulcer in the anti-scleroderma-70-positive patient cohort occurred approximately 5 years earlier than the ACA-positive patient group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides data from a large cohort of SSc patients with a history of digital ulcers. The early occurrence and high frequency of digital ulcer complications are especially seen in patients with dcSSc and/or anti-scleroderma-70 antibodies

Reference values for diagnostic radiology:Application and impact

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance. (C) RSNA, 2005.</p