Abstract
Background
Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) poses a major disease burden. It can generally be treated with long-term antibacterial therapy. International guidelines recommend to base antibacterial therapy choices on percutaneous bone biopsy culture, while in practice, therapy is frequently based on (less invasive) ulcer bed cultures. It is currently unknown if treatment outcomes of DFO differ depending on the chosen diagnostic strategy.
Methods
The BeBoP trial is a multicentre; randomised controlled; physician-, researcher- and subject-blinded; clinical trial comparing two diagnostic strategies in persons with DFO. Culture-directed antibacterial therapy will be based on either percutaneous bone biopsy culture results (intervention group) or ulcer bed biopsy culture results (comparison group). We will enrol 80 subjects with diabetes mellitus (≥ 18 years) and DFO, and we will use block randomisation stratified per centre to randomise them in a 1:1 allocation. The primary outcome is remission of DFO 12 months after enrolment. The secondary outcomes are the time to remission, signs of inflammation or ulceration at the primary location of infection at 6 and 12 months, microbiological and molecular profiles of culture outcomes, surgical interventions including amputation, total antibacterial therapy duration, infection-free survival days, adverse events, quality of life and survival. We will compare the outcomes by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis.
Discussion
We aim to compare clinical remission in persons with DFO treated with antibacterial therapy based on either percutaneous bone biopsy culture results or ulcer bed biopsy culture results.
Trial registration
Netherlands Trial Register NL 7582. Registered on 05 March 2019
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Lagrand, Rimke Sabine 2 ; Sabelis, Louise Willy Elizabeth 2 ; den Heijer, Martin 1 ; de Groot, Vincent 2 ; Nieuwdorp, Max 3 ; Kortmann, Willemijn 4 ; Sieswerda, Elske 5 ; Peters, Edgar Josephus Gerardus 1 1 Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.12380.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 1754 9227)
2 Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.12380.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 1754 9227)
3 Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.12380.38)
4 Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Department of Internal Medicine, Alkmaar, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.491364.d)
5 Medical Cemtre Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Department of Medical Microbiology, Utrecht, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5477.1) (ISNI:0000000120346234)




