A systematic review of diabetic foot infections: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management strategies

BackgroundDiabetic foot infection represents a significant complication of diabetes mellitus, contributing substantially to morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Accurate diagnosis relies on a comprehensive assessment integrating clinical evaluation, imaging studies, and microbiological analysis. Management necessitates a multidisciplinary approach, encompassing surgical intervention, antimicrobial therapy, and advanced wound care strategies. Preventive measures are paramount in reducing the incidence and severity, emphasizing patient education, regular foot screenings, and early intervention.MethodsThe researchers performed a systematic review of literature using PUBMED MESH keywords. Additionally, the study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews at the Center for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York (CRD42021277788). This review provides a comprehensive overview of the microbial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns observed in diabetic foot infections.ResultsThe search through the databases finally identified 13 articles with 2545 patients from 2021 to 2023. Overall, the predominant Gram-positive microbial species isolated were Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus fecalis, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Whereas the predominant Gram-negative included Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.ConclusionDiabetic foot infections represent a complex and multifaceted clinical entity, necessitating a holistic approach to diagnosis, management, and prevention. Limited high-quality research data on outcomes and the effectiveness of guideline recommendations pose challenges in updating and refining existing DFI management guidelines.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277788, identifier CRD42021277788

School Closure Decisions in Alberta and Ontario during COVID-19: Discourse and Data

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant disruptions in Canada's public school system as provincial and territorial governments have enacted sudden and prolonged school closures. We compare the different school closure decisions in Alberta and Ontario during spring 2021, using official public briefings and publicly available data about rates of COVID-19 cases. We ask if provincial policy decisions can be explained by different epidemiological contexts and risks. We find that key epidemiological indicators such as the rate of cases were not directly linked to school closure decisions. This is important for policy makers and experts: it problematizes the assumption of a straight line between evidence and decisions and has implications for transparency and public trust in pandemic policy choices. A systematic description of the gap between evidence and policy is an important starting point for asking, What does drive decisions to close schools?</jats:p

Gender disparities in symptomology of COVID-19 among adults in Arkansas

Only a few studies and reports assessing the natural history and symptomatology for COVID-19 by gender have been reported in literature to date. Thus, the objective of this study was to examine patterns in symptomology of COVID-19 by gender among a diverse adult population in Arkansas. Data on COVID-19 symptoms was collected at day of testing, 7th day and 14th day among participants at UAMS mobile testing units throughout the state of Arkansas. Diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed via nasopharyngeal swab and RT-PCR methods. Data analysis was conducted using Chi-square test and Poisson regression to assess the differences in characteristics by gender. A total of 60,648 community members and patients of Arkansas received RT-PCR testing. Among adults testing positive, we observed a statistically significant difference for fever (p < 0.001) and chills (p = 0.04). Males were more likely to report having a fever (22.6% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.001) and chills (14.9% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.04) compared to females. Among adults testing negative, females were more likely to report each symptom than males. To conclude, we observed a greater prevalence of certain symptoms such as fever and chills among men testing positive for COVID-19, compared to women during the time of testing. These differences elucidate the important issue of rapidly emerging health disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic

State-wide random seroprevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 past infection in a southern US State, 2020.

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the proportion of Arkansas residents who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus between May and December 2020 and to assess the determinants of infection. To estimate seroprevalence, a state-wide population-based random-digit dial sample of non-institutionalized adults in Arkansas was surveyed. Exposures were age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, occupation, contact with infected persons, comorbidities, height, and weight. The outcome was past COVID-19 infection measured by serum antibody test. We found a prevalence of 15.1% (95% CI: 11.1%, 20.2%) by December 2020. Seropositivity was significantly elevated among participants who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic (prevalence ratio [PRs]:1.4 [95% CI: 0.8, 2.4] and 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3, 4.0], respectively), worked in high-demand essential services (PR: 2.5 [95% CI: 1.5, 4.1]), did not have a college degree (PR: 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.4]), had an infected household or extra-household contact (PRs: 4.7 [95% CI: 2.1, 10.1] and 2.6 [95% CI: 1.2, 5.7], respectively), and were contacted in November or December (PR: 3.6 [95% CI: 1.9, 6.9]). Our results indicate that by December 2020, one out six persons in Arkansas had a past SARS-CoV-2 infection

State-wide random seroprevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 past infection in a southern US State, 2020

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the proportion of Arkansas residents who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus between May and December 2020 and to assess the determinants of infection. To estimate seroprevalence, a state-wide population-based random-digit dial sample of non-institutionalized adults in Arkansas was surveyed. Exposures were age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, occupation, contact with infected persons, comorbidities, height, and weight. The outcome was past COVID-19 infection measured by serum antibody test. We found a prevalence of 15.1% (95% CI: 11.1%, 20.2%) by December 2020. Seropositivity was significantly elevated among participants who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic (prevalence ratio [PRs]:1.4 [95% CI: 0.8, 2.4] and 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3, 4.0], respectively), worked in high-demand essential services (PR: 2.5 [95% CI: 1.5, 4.1]), did not have a college degree (PR: 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.4]), had an infected household or extra-household contact (PRs: 4.7 [95% CI: 2.1, 10.1] and 2.6 [95% CI: 1.2, 5.7], respectively), and were contacted in November or December (PR: 3.6 [95% CI: 1.9, 6.9]). Our results indicate that by December 2020, one out six persons in Arkansas had a past SARS-CoV-2 infection.</jats:p

Temporal Variations in Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infections by Race and Ethnicity in Arkansas

ABSTRACTObjectiveOur objective is to estimate CoV-2 infection rates in a rural state using seroprevalence of antibodies to CoV-2 as an indicator of infection.Study Design and SettingThis is a single-site study within an academic center and regional programs within the state of Arkansas. We obtained residual serum samples from a convenience sample of adults who were outpatients and came to the hospital or regional clinic for non-COVID-related reasons. We collected remnant in three time periods (August 15 to September 5, September 12 to October 24, and November 7 to December 19).ResultsIn 2020, the overall age, gender, and race standardized prevalence of CoV-2 antibodies was 2.6% (August to September), 4.1% (September to October), and 7.4% (November to December). There was no difference in seroprevalence between urban compared to rural areas. Positive tests were not uniformly distributed across racial and ethnic minorities. Higher seroprevalence rates were found in Hispanics and Blacks or African Americans compared to whites across all time periods.ConclusionsIn a state with a large rural population, 2.6-7.4% of people experienced CoV-2 infection by December 2020. Blacks and Hispanics had disproportionately higher rates of CoV-2 infections than whites.What is new?Key findingsIn this prospective convenience sampling of remnant sera, we found increasing seroprevalence from 2.6% to 7.4% (August 2020 to December 2020). Higher seroprevalence rates were found in Hispanics and Blacks or African Americans compared to whites across all time periods, and no difference was determined between those individuals from rural or urban areas.What this adds to what is knownIn a largely rural population, Blacks and Hispanics had disproportionately higher rates of CoV-2 infections than whites, and these populations need to be studied further regarding outcomes.What is the implication?There are health disparities that exist regarding CoV-2 infections, and we should target vaccination information and education to these groups.Highlights-SARS-CoV-2 infections increased from 2.6% to 7.4% from August to December 2020.-Higher seroprevalence was found in Hispanics and Blacks as compared to whites.-There was no difference in the seroprevalence in rural compared to urban areas.</jats:sec

Temporal Variations in Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections by Race and Ethnicity in Arkansas

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to estimate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates in the small rural state of Arkansas, using SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence as an indicator of infection. Methods We collected residual serum samples from adult outpatients seen at hospitals or clinics in Arkansas for non–coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related reasons. A total of 5804 samples were identified over 3 time periods: 15 August–5 September 2020 (time period 1), 12 September–24 October 2020 (time period 2), and 7 November–19 December 2020 (time period 3). Results The age-, sex-, race-, and ethnicity-standardized SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence during each period, from 2.6% in time period 1 to 4.1% in time period 2 and 7.4% in time period 3. No statistically significant difference in seroprevalence was found based on age, sex, or residence (urban vs rural). However, we found higher seroprevalence rates in each time period for Hispanics (17.6%, 20.6%, and 23.4%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Blacks (4.8%, 5.4%, and 8.9%, respectively) relative to non-Hispanic Whites (1.1%, 2.6%, and 5.5%, respectively). Conclusions Our data imply that the number of Arkansas residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 rose steadily from 2.6% in August to 7.4% in December 2020. There was no statistical difference in seroprevalence between rural and urban locales. Hispanics and Blacks had higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than Whites, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 spread disproportionately in racial and ethnic minorities during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. </jats:sec

Comparison of characteristics of participants and non-participants, in a random sample of adults, Arkansas, May–December 2020.

(DOCX)</p

Weighted period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 past infection and prevalence ratios (PR) by select characteristics in a random sample of adults, Arkansas, May–December 2020.

Weighted period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 past infection and prevalence ratios (PR) by select characteristics in a random sample of adults, Arkansas, May–December 2020.</p