Aim: We evaluated the performance of Unyvero implant and tissue infections system (ITI) application (Curetis) to diagnose Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis (DFOM). Patients & methods: The study was conducted in the Diabetic Foot reference center of Nîmes University Hospital (France) from 1 December 2016 to 31 May 2017. We compared the Unyvero ITI PCR to conventional culture and alternative molecular approaches. Results: A total of 79 patients with DFOM were included: 177 microorganisms were isolated by culture, 146 detected by PCR, resulting in a concordance level of 66.7% (65.0–68.4). Discrepant results were obtained for 45 samples, with 59 microorganisms being detected by PCR only (18 samples) or by culture only (27 samples). Conclusion: Unyvero ITI PCR represents an interesting additional diagnosis solution to manage DFOM.

Graphical abstract

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1 Uckay I, Gariani K, Dubois-Rerrière V, Suva D, Lipsky BA. Diabetic foot infections: recent literature and cornerstones of management. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 29(2), 145–152 (2016). •• A clear presentation of the problematic of diabetic foot infection and its difficulties in management and treatment.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2 Pereira SG, Moura J, Carvalho E, Empadinhas N. Microbiota of chronic diabetic wounds: ecology, impact, and potential for innovative treatment strategies. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1791 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3 Petrakis I, Kyriopoulos IJ, Ginis A, Athanasakis K. Losing a foot versus losing a dollar: a systematic review of cost studies in diabetic foot complications. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 17(2), 165–180 (2017). • A review on the direct and indirect costs of diabetic foot infections.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Ndosi M, Wright-Hughes A, Brown S et al. Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer: a 12-month prospective observational study. Diabet. Med. 35(1), 78–88 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5 Senneville E, Robineau O. Treatment options for diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 18(8), 759–765 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6 Bakker K, Apelqvist J, Lipsky BA, Van Netten JJ; International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. The 2015 IWGDF guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: development of an evidence-based global consensus. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 32(S1), 2–6 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7 Lipsky BA, Peters EJ, Senneville E et al. Expert opinion on the management of infections in the diabetic foot. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 28(S1), 163–178 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8 Fosse-Edorh S, Mandereau-Bruno L, Regnault N. Le poids des complications liées au diabète en France en 2013. Synthèse et perspectives. Bull. Epidemiol. Hebd. 34–35, 619–625 (2015).
Google Scholar
9 Abdel Razek A, Samir S. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of diabetic osteoarthropathy and osteomyelitis in diabetic foot. Eur. J. Radiol. 89, 221–225 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10 Lauri C, Tamminga M, Glaudemans AWJM et al. Detection of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot by imaging techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MRI, white blood cell scintigraphy, and FDG-PET. Diabetes Care 40(8), 1111–1120 (2017). • This meta-analysis evaluates the performance of the different imaging tools used in the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11 van Asten SA, La Fontaine J, Peters EJ, Bhavan K, Kim PJ, Lavery LA. The microbiome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 35(2), 293–298 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12 Boulton AJ, Kirsner RS, Vileikyte L. Clinical practice. Neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. N. Engl. J. Med. 351(1), 48–55 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13 Lavery LA, Fontaine JL, Bhavan K, Kim PJ, Williams JR, Hunt NA. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections. Diabet. Foot Ankle 5, 23575 (2014).
Google Scholar
14 Lavigne JP, Sotto A. Microbial management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Future Microbiol. 12, 1243–1246 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
15 Lavigne JP, Sotto A, Dunyach-Remy C, Lipsky BA. New molecular techniques to study the skin microbiota of diabetic foot ulcers. Adv. Wound Care 4(1), 38–49 (2015).
Google Scholar
16 Lipsky BA, Aragón-Sánchez J, Diggle M et al. IWGDF guidance on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 32(S1), 45–74 (2016). •• This publication provides the international guidelines to manage diabetic foot.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17 Senneville E, Melliez H, Beltrand E et al. Culture of percutaneous bone biopsy specimens for diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: concordance with ulcer swab cultures. Clin. Infect. Dis. 42(1), 57–62 (2006). • This publication demonstrates the need to use bone biopsy in the documentation of diabetic foot osteomyelitis.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18 Dryden M, Lavigne JP. Diabetic foot infection. In: EMCM: European Manuel of Clinical Microbiology. (1st Edition). Kahlmeter G, Cornaglia G, Courcol R, Herrmann JL (Eds). ESCMID SFM, Paris, France 235–240 (2012).
Google Scholar
19 Gouvea MIS, Joao EC, Teixeira MLB et al. Accuracy of a rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for diagnosis of group B Streptococcus colonization in a cohort of HIV-infected pregnant women. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 30(9), 1096–1101 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20 Djahmi N, Boutet-Dubois A, Nedjai S, Dekhil M, Sotto A, Lavigne JP. Molecular epidemiology of Enterococcus sp. isolated in a university hospital in Algeria. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 44(9), 656–662 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21 Drancourt M, Raoult D. rpoB gene sequence-based identification of Staphylococcus species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40(4), 1333–1338 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22 Li X, Xing J, Li B, Wang P, Liu J. Use of tuf as a target for sequence-based identification of Gram-positive cocci of the genus Enterococcus, Streptococcus, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Lactococcus. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 11, 31 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23 Li W, Han K, Yu P, Ma C, Wu X, Xu J. Nested PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of human skin microbial diversity with age. Microbiol. Res. 169(9–10), 686–692 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24 Dunyach C, Bertout S, Phelipeau C, Drakulovski P, Reynes J, Mallié M. Detection and identification of Candida spp. in human serum by LightCycler real-time polymerase chain reaction. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 60(3), 263–271 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25 Dunyach-Remy C, Cadière A, Richard JL et al. Polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE): a promising tool to diagnose bacterial infections in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet. Metab. 40(6), 476–480 (2014).
CASGoogle Scholar
26 Pitout JD, Hanson ND, Church DL, Laupland KB. Population-based laboratory surveillance for Escherichia coli-producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: importance of community isolates with blaCTX-M genes. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38(12), 1736–1741 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27 Kim J, Lim YM, Jeong YS, Seol SY. Occurrence of CTX-M-3, CTX-M-15, CTX-M-14 and CTX-M-9 extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates in Korea. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49(4), 1572–1575 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28 Poirel L, Walsh TR, Cuvillier V, Nordmann P. Multiplex PCR for detection of acquired carbapenemase genes. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 70(1), 119–123 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29 Woodford N, Ellington MJ, Coelho JM et al. Multiplex PCR for genes encoding prevalent OXA carbapenemases in Acinetobacter spp. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 27(4), 351–353 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30 Boye K, Bartels MD, Andersen IS, Møller JA, Westh H. A new multiplex PCR for easy screening of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus SCCmec types I–V. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 13(7), 725–727 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31 James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R et al. Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 16(1), 37–44 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32 Senneville E, Morant H, Descamps D et al. Needle puncture and transcutaneous bone biopsy cultures are inconsistent in patients with diabetes and suspected osteomyelitis of the foot. Clin. Infect. Dis. 48(7), 888–893 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33 Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Smith E, Rhoads D. Polymicrobial nature of chronic diabetic foot ulcer biofilm infections determined using bacterial tag encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). PLoS ONE 3, e3326 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34 Hatipoglu M, Mutluoglu M, Turhan V, Uzun G, Lipsky BA; Turk-DAY Study Group. Causative pathogens and antibiotic resistance in diabetic foot infections: a prospective multi-center study. J. Diabetes Complicat. 30(5), 910–916 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35 Dunyach-Remy C, Ngba Essebe C, Sotto A, Lavigne JP. Staphylococcus aureus toxins and diabetic foot ulcers: Role in pathogenesis and interest in diagnosis. Toxins 8, pii:E209 (2016). • An interesting review on the pathogenicity of Staphylococcus aureus, the main pathogen isolated from diabetic foot infection.
Google Scholar
36 Levy PY, Fournier PE, Fenollar F, Raoult D. Systematic PCR detection in culture-negative osteoarticular infections. Am. J. Med. 126(12), 1143.e25–1143.e33 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
37 Stappers MH, Hagen F, Reimnitz P, Mouton JW, Meis JF, Gyssens IC. Bacteroides fragilis in biopsies of patients with major abscesses and diabetic foot infections: direct molecular versus culture-based detection. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 85(2), 263–265 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38 Charles PG, Uçkay I, Kressmann B, Emonet S, Lipsky BA. The role of anaerobes in diabetic foot infections. Anaerobe 34, 8–13 (2015). • A noteworthy review on anaerobes, real pathogens involved in deep diabetic foot infections frequently ignored due to absence of adapted transport media or culture media.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39 Citron DM, Goldstein EJ, Merriam CV, Lipsky BA, Abramson MA. Bacteriology of moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infections and in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45(9), 2819–2828 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40 Abdulrazak A, Bitar ZI, Al-Shamali AA, Mobasher LA. Bacteriological study of diabetic foot infections. J. Diabetes Complicat. 19(3), 138–141 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41 Quénard F, Seng P, Lagier JC, Fenollar F, Stein A. Prosthetic joint infection caused by Granulicatella adiacens: a case series and review of literature. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 18(1), 276 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42 Jones BM, Hersey RM, Trestman IJ, Bland CM. Successful treatment of a penicillin-intermediate and ceftriaxone-resistant Granulicatella adiacens presumed prosthetic valve endocarditis with vancomycin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 51(3), 508–510 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43 Borde JP, Häcker GA, Guschl S et al. Diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections using UMD-Universal Kit and the automated multiplex-PCR Unyvero i60 ITI^® cartridge system: a pilot study. Infection 43(5), 551–560 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44 Hischebeth GT, Randau TM, Buhr JK et al. Unyvero i60 implant and tissue infection (ITI) multiplex PCR system in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. J. Microbiol. Methods 121, 27–32 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45 Malandain D, Bémer P, Leroy AG et al. Assessment of the automated multiplex-PCR Unyvero i60 ITI^® cartridge system to diagnose prosthetic joint infection: a multicentre study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 24(1), 83.e1–83.e6 (2018). • The most interesting study on the performance and the limits of the Unyvero implant and tissue infections system used in the diagnosis of osteoarticular infections.
CASGoogle Scholar
46 Villa F, Toscano M, De Vecchi E, Bortolin M, Drago L. Reliability of a multiplex PCR system for diagnosis of early and late prosthetic joint infections before and after broth enrichment. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 307(6), 363–370 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 13, No. 15

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 130 times

History

Received 25 July 2018

Accepted 26 October 2018

Published online 29 November 2018

Published in print November 2018

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fmb-2018-0213

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the patients for acceptance to be included into this study. The work was conducted by the CPGO team (Clinique du Pied Gard Occitanie). The authors belong to the FHU InCh (Chronic Infections), Aviesan.

This manuscript has been presented in the 28th ECCMID (April, 2018), Madrid, Spain.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study was supported by the INSERM. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download