Diabetic Foot UlcerNCT04025853
Inflammatory Biomarkers to Diagnose and Monitor Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis
An observational study of Diabetic Foot Ulcer, run by University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators plan to do a retrospective chart review of 500 patients admitted to the hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 with diabetic foot infections. The investigators will define a positive case of osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 89 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Diabetic Foot Ulcer
- How many people
- 455 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jun 2015to Mar 2018
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 89 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients with foot infections.
Who may be able to join
- Patients of the investigators.
- Male and female
- ages 18-89
- moderate diabetic foot infections (according to IDSA criteria) and non-diabetic foot infections who presented for treatment between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. •positive case of osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or chronic osteomyelitis.
- The investigators will only enroll patients who have an initial baseline CRP or ESR within 72 hours of admission, before any surgical procedures.
Who cannot join
- •Not meeting inclusion criteria.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
Dallas, Texas, 75390
About this study
The investigators plan to do a retrospective chart review of 500 patients admitted to the hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 with diabetic foot infections. The investigators will define a positive case of osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or chronic osteomyelitis. Levels of inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, ESR) will be collected from the charts from the first time of diagnosis. Because wound healing, biomarker levels and resolution of infection are clearly affected by other factors such as demographics, medical/surgical history, social history, medications, laboratory results, peripheral arterial disease, wound severity, and treatment factors such as type of antibiotics, off-loading, debridement and vascular surgery interventions these will also be collected. The investigators will collect this clinical data for both cohorts.
Read the detailed description
Introduction and Purpose:
Foot infections are one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and amputation in persons with diabetes. It is often difficult to determine if diabetic foot ulcers have osteomyelitis. Inaccurate diagnosis of osteomyelitis leads to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, surgery, and amputation. In addition, there are no good diagnostic tests to determine when osteomyelitis has been successfully treated. The results of medical treatment for DFO alone are poor with success rates of 60%.
The investigators plan a retrospective chart review of 500 patients admitted to our hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 with diabetic foot infections. We will define diabetic foot osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or chronic osteomyelitis.
The investigators also plan to review 200 foot infections in non-diabetics.
Specific Aims Aim 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis using bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Aim 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to differentiate osteomyelitis from deep soft tissue infections in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
There is no risk to subjects, except a minimal risk of Loss of Confidentiality. Information gained from the analysis of data may lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms of diabetic ulcer formation and DFO and inform future research to develop better treatments.
Background:
There is a worldwide epidemic of diabetes. According to data from the World Health Organization, the world prevalence of diabetes among adults was 6.4% in 2010, affecting 285 million adults worldwide. The prevalence of diabetes is expected to increase to 7.7% by 2030 (439 million adults) [1]. In the United States, the prevalence of diabetes increased by 26% from 2007 to 2012, and the associated cost of managing this disease increased from $174 to $245 billion (41% increases) in the same time period [2]. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 26 million people in the US have diabetes [3]. By 2034 this is expected to increase to 44 million people [4]. Diabetic foot infections are a common, costly, and life altering complication.
As part of the worldwide epidemic of diabetes mellitus, the prevalence of lower extremity complications is rising. Patients with diabetes are now confronted with a 25% lifetime risk of developing a foot ulcer. Among persons with diabetes, foot infections are one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and lower extremity amputations. 20% of all patients with infected foot ulcers end up with amputation of the foot or leg; however, when there is osteomyelitis, the risk of amputation increases 3 fold. On average patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis have longer hospitalizations (32 vs.14 days), more surgeries (65% vs. 31%), and longer treatment with intravenous antibiotics (32 vs. 14 days) compared to patients with soft tissue infections.
Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) and monitoring resolution of infection remains a challenge with very little evidence that biomarkers or imaging techniques can accurately assess the presence of bone infection. Bone culture and histology are considered to be the gold standard in most guidelines to diagnose DFO but it is not routinely done in clinical practice. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) has been suggested to be the best currently available laboratory test to diagnose and monitor DFO. Only a few small studies have evaluated the value of C-reactive protein (CRP) to diagnose and monitor osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Unfortunately, the level of quality of the available studies is low, patient populations are small and the heterogeneous use of reference tests to confirm DFO make it difficult to compare data.
Preliminary Studies:
Preliminary data suggest that CRP is a valuable marker to distinguish bone infection in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Also, results show that ESR and CRP may be helpful when monitoring success of therapy. The investigators hypothesize that CRP will be the most valuable marker to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis and that ESR gives the clinician more information during follow-up.
- Conditions
- Diabetic Foot Ulcer
- Medical subject headings
- Diabetic Foot
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis using bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
To correlate the level of white blood cell count, c-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate with the results of bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Measured: 2 years
Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to differentiate osteomyelitis from deep soft tissue infections in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
To correlate the accuracy of white blood cell count, c-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to differentiate osteomyelitis by observing the results of bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Jul 2019
- Study startJun 2015
- Primary completionMar 2018
- Study completionMar 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Diabetic Foot UlcerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 455 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Larry Lavery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
- Investigators
- Lawrence Lavery, DPM, Principal investigator, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04025853
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 042015-048
- Status last verified
- Jul 2023
- First submitted
- 17 May 2019
- Last updated
- 24 Jul 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Guariguata L, Whiting D, Weil C, Unwin N. The International Diabetes Federation diabetes atlas methodology for estimating global and national prevalence of diabetes in adults. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011 Dec;94(3):322-32. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.040. Epub 2011 Nov 17.
PubMed 22100977American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013 Apr;36(4):1033-46. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2625. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
PubMed 23468086Huang ES, Basu A, O'Grady M, Capretta JC. Projecting the future diabetes population size and related costs for the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2009 Dec;32(12):2225-9. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0459.
PubMed 19940225Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS, Karchmer AW, LeFrock JL, Lew DP, Mader JT, Norden C, Tan JS; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Jun;117(7 Suppl):212S-238S. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000222737.09322.77.
PubMed 16799390
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Jul 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Inflammatory Biomarkers to Diagnose and Monitor Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04025853
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 042015-048
- Conditions
- Diabetic Foot Ulcer
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 455 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Mar 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Jul 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators plan to do a retrospective chart review of 500 patients admitted to the hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 with diabetic foot infections. The investigators will define a positive case of osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or chronic osteomyelitis. Levels of inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, ESR) will be collected from the charts from the first time of diagnosis. Because wound healing, biomarker levels and resolution of infection are clearly affected by other factors such as demographics, medical/surgical history, social history, medications, laboratory results, peripheral arterial disease, wound severity, and treatment factors such as type of antibiotics, off-loading, debridement and vascular surgery interventions these will also be collected. The investigators will collect this clinical data for both cohorts.
Detailed description
Introduction and Purpose:
Foot infections are one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and amputation in persons with diabetes. It is often difficult to determine if diabetic foot ulcers have osteomyelitis. Inaccurate diagnosis of osteomyelitis leads to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, surgery, and amputation. In addition, there are no good diagnostic tests to determine when osteomyelitis has been successfully treated. The results of medical treatment for DFO alone are poor with success rates of 60%.
The investigators plan a retrospective chart review of 500 patients admitted to our hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 with diabetic foot infections. We will define diabetic foot osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or chronic osteomyelitis.
The investigators also plan to review 200 foot infections in non-diabetics.
Specific Aims Aim 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis using bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Aim 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to differentiate osteomyelitis from deep soft tissue infections in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
There is no risk to subjects, except a minimal risk of Loss of Confidentiality. Information gained from the analysis of data may lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms of diabetic ulcer formation and DFO and inform future research to develop better treatments.
Background:
There is a worldwide epidemic of diabetes. According to data from the World Health Organization, the world prevalence of diabetes among adults was 6.4% in 2010, affecting 285 million adults worldwide. The prevalence of diabetes is expected to increase to 7.7% by 2030 (439 million adults) [1]. In the United States, the prevalence of diabetes increased by 26% from 2007 to 2012, and the associated cost of managing this disease increased from $174 to $245 billion (41% increases) in the same time period [2]. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 26 million people in the US have diabetes [3]. By 2034 this is expected to increase to 44 million people [4]. Diabetic foot infections are a common, costly, and life altering complication.
As part of the worldwide epidemic of diabetes mellitus, the prevalence of lower extremity complications is rising. Patients with diabetes are now confronted with a 25% lifetime risk of developing a foot ulcer. Among persons with diabetes, foot infections are one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and lower extremity amputations. 20% of all patients with infected foot ulcers end up with amputation of the foot or leg; however, when there is osteomyelitis, the risk of amputation increases 3 fold. On average patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis have longer hospitalizations (32 vs.14 days), more surgeries (65% vs. 31%), and longer treatment with intravenous antibiotics (32 vs. 14 days) compared to patients with soft tissue infections.
Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) and monitoring resolution of infection remains a challenge with very little evidence that biomarkers or imaging techniques can accurately assess the presence of bone infection. Bone culture and histology are considered to be the gold standard in most guidelines to diagnose DFO but it is not routinely done in clinical practice. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) has been suggested to be the best currently available laboratory test to diagnose and monitor DFO. Only a few small studies have evaluated the value of C-reactive protein (CRP) to diagnose and monitor osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Unfortunately, the level of quality of the available studies is low, patient populations are small and the heterogeneous use of reference tests to confirm DFO make it difficult to compare data.
Preliminary Studies:
Preliminary data suggest that CRP is a valuable marker to distinguish bone infection in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Also, results show that ESR and CRP may be helpful when monitoring success of therapy. The investigators hypothesize that CRP will be the most valuable marker to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis and that ESR gives the clinician more information during follow-up.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 89 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients with foot infections.
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients of the investigators.
- Male and female
- ages 18-89
- moderate diabetic foot infections (according to IDSA criteria) and non-diabetic foot infections who presented for treatment between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. •positive case of osteomyelitis as bone with positive bacterial cultures or histologic finding of acute or chronic osteomyelitis.
- The investigators will only enroll patients who have an initial baseline CRP or ESR within 72 hours of admission, before any surgical procedures.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- •Not meeting inclusion criteria.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis using bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Time frame: 2 years
To correlate the level of white blood cell count, c-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate with the results of bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to differentiate osteomyelitis from deep soft tissue infections in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
Time frame: 2 years
To correlate the accuracy of white blood cell count, c-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to differentiate osteomyelitis by observing the results of bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Jul 2023.
- Background: PubMed 22100977Guariguata L, Whiting D, Weil C, Unwin N. The International Diabetes Federation diabetes atlas methodology for estimating global and national prevalence of diabetes in adults. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011 Dec;94(3):322-32. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.040. Epub 2011 Nov 17.
- Background: PubMed 23468086American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013 Apr;36(4):1033-46. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2625. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
- Background: PubMed 19940225Huang ES, Basu A, O'Grady M, Capretta JC. Projecting the future diabetes population size and related costs for the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2009 Dec;32(12):2225-9. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0459.
- Background: PubMed 16799390Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS, Karchmer AW, LeFrock JL, Lew DP, Mader JT, Norden C, Tan JS; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Jun;117(7 Suppl):212S-238S. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000222737.09322.77.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Recruiting
PAW-Hydrogel for Chronic Wound Healing
Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), Pressure Ulcer (PU)
Active, not recruiting
Wearable Insoles for Recurrent Diabetic Ulcer Prevention
Diabetes, Peripheral Neuropathy
Active, not recruiting
Evaluation of Personalized Nutritional Intervention on Wound Healing of Cutaneous Ulcers in Diabetics
Foot, Diabetic
Not yet recruiting
Efficacy Evaluation of Turmeric-Derived Nanoparticle Hydrogel for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Wounds
Diabete Mellitus
Not yet recruiting
Better Care Closer to Home: Enhancing Primary and Community Care
Diabetic Foot Disease, Recurrence
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Lawrence Lavery, DPM principal investigator
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Diabetic Foot Ulcer, run by University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Jul 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Evaluate the effectiveness of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis using bone culture and histopathology as the "gold standard" to establish the diagnosis. (time frame: 2 years). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04025853, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Jul 2023.