AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in United States

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.

Medical subject headings
Diabetic Foot

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  1. First posted19 Jul 2019
  2. Study startJun 2015
  3. Primary completionMar 2018
  4. Study completionMar 2018

Resources

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)
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 22100977
  • American 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 23468086
  • Huang 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 19940225
  • Lipsky 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in