A Case for Serial Radiographs and Modulation of Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines.
Osteomyelitis presents in 3 different stages with poorly defined transitions: acute, subacute, and chronic.5 The transition from acute to subacute or chronic indicates that therapeutic measures have been inadequate or inappropriately treated.6 Osteomyelitis is most commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus, β-haemolytic streptococci, and in some cases, aerobic gram-negative rods,7 with most diabetic foot ulcers being polymicrobial.8 Most diabetic foot infections result from contiguous spread of infection from adjacent soft tissue, but can result from direct inoculation of a penetrating injury.10
Diabetic pre-ulceration typically starts with repetitive trauma and or prolonged pressure/shear. This results in a repetitive ischemic reperfusion injury and local tissue ischemia inducing chronic inflammation in pre-ulcerative tissue.11-20 The pathological features of an ischemic-reperfusion injury include accumulation of leukocytes in blood vessel lumens and leukocyte extravasation, elevated expression of inflammatory cytokines with tissue destruction proteinases, and fibrosis of microvessels, which are all features seen in other types of ischemia-reperfusion injury.13-21 This is an important and often over looked stage in the development of diabetic foot ulcers because the diabetic foot is already highly compromised and deep within the chronic inflammatory phase of healing even before the ulcer appears.
Once bacteria gain access to soft tissue they begin to multiply, leading to an ever increasing inflammatory response. This inflammatory response increases edema and induration which further compromises surrounding tissue and the periosteum by reducing blood flow and causing thrombosis within the vessels, resulting in hypoxic tissue and bone infarctions.22 Unchecked, this infection will propagate on and beneath the periosteum, stripping it from its bond with the cortical bone, allowing the infection to track along its length and around its circumference.23 Since the outer aspect of the cortical bone is vascularized by the periosteum, its loss results in extensive necrosis that can involve the entire bone.22 Once cortical bone is exposed the infection can quickly gain access to the bone marrow via Volkmann’s and Haversian canals.24
Soft tissue infections in the diabetic foot ulcer are often clinically obvious, but the diagnosis of underlying osteomyelitis can be challenging.25 Accurate diagnosis of osteomyelitis is necessary to ensure appropriate treatment. Bone histology and bone cultures are the gold standard in diagnosing osteomyelitis.25 However, this criteria can be difficult to satisfy in many cases, so it is common for clinical diagnosis to be based on a range of clinical and imaging features.22 In Wagner grade 1 and 2 ulcers, osteomyelitis should be suspected with two main conditions: no healing (or no depth decrease) in spite of appropriate care and off-loading, and/or visible or palpated bone with a metal probe.44
There is general agreement that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most useful imaging study for diagnosing underlying osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers.26-31 Plain film radiography represents an important assessment tool for evaluating infection, foreign bodies, and deformities and represent the gold standard of initial care.30-31,43 In the non-healing diabetic foot ulcer this radiography with become invaluable if the ulcer fails to progress in the initial 30 days of care.
Bone infections can precede radiological changes by up to four weeks, although in most instances changes can be seen at 14 days.22,25,30-31,43 Unfortunately, radiographies have poor sensitivity to detect early stages of osteomyelitis.3,32-33 However, there are a number of articles that reported at 28 days after inoculation more than 90% of all cases will have diagnostic changes that can be seen on routine radiographs.36-40 This fact seems surprising since this author and others were unable to find any evaluation of the role of serial radiographs in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis.34-35 Serial radiographs can be persuasive if they demonstrate progressive changes of bone resorption, cortical destruction, and periosteal elevation.27,34,41,42 Combining serial radiograph results with fine-needle bone biopsies, taken from the ulcer’s margin provide bone and fluid for both histological and microbiologic analyses, thereby achieving the gold standard of care.45 Fine-needle bone biopsies have a reported sensitivity for osteomyelitis of 87% and a specificity of 93% 45and can be performed in the clinical setting or with radiological guidance to ensure placement directly into the suspected lesion.23,45-48
Since osteomyelitis is an inflammatory disorder, there may be a need for the addition of Doxycycline (DOX) and or other chemically modified tetracyclines (CMT) in its treatment. Some antimicrobial agents given to cure infections can also modify the host immune response. DOX and other CMT have potential ‘non-antibiotic’ anti-inflammatory activities.49-53 There is evidence that DOX and CMTs inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) and interleukin-1β (IL-1β).49-56 These cytokines have long been recognized as bone-resorbing cytokines and are produced in high numbers in bone infected with osteomyelitis.57 Chronic diabetic ulcer fluid has been found to contain up to a 100-fold increase in the levels of these cytokines.58-63 Researchers have suggested that elevated TNF-α and IL-1β levels induced by infection may be related to bone damage in early osteomyelitis.64 One group of researchers studying the efficacy of DOX in the treatment of bone and prosthetic joint infections, treated 11 patients with acute and chronic osteomyelitis. All patients had DOX added to their treatment regiment for a median of 120 days with no serious side effects and successful outcomes in all patients.65 Other researchers have reported evidence that DOX and CMT inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption by inducing apoptosis of osteoclasts.66-71
There is also a reported synergistic effect between DOX/CMTs and non-steroidal ant-inflammatory (NSAIDS) drugs in different animal and human models of disease. In the arthritic joint, oral Doxycycline uptake is increased by as much as 150%. This phenomenon facilitates its uptake into therapeutic target areas. The combination of these two therapies has significantly decreased tissue destruction and inflammation when used in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis.72-77 Although NSAIDs do not directly affect MMP functions, researchers have found that they do potentiate the anti-collagenolytic/proteolytic potential of DOX/CMT by reducing edema, thereby facilitating its entry into sites of inflammation.72
There clearly seems to be evidence available to support a clinical trial of the addition of Doxycycline and or other chemically modified tetracyclines in the treatment of osteomyelitis. It seems that a well developed trial would include an arm with NSAIDs. Evidence already exists to support the use of serial radiographs in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in non-healing diabetic foot ulcers. The only thing that appears to be missing is a valid clinical trial to support it use.
References
1. Boulton AJ, Vileikytr L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, et al. The global burden of diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet. 2005; 366: 1719-1724.
2. Dinh MT, Abad CL, Safdar N. Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis. Clinical Infectious Disease. 2008; 47: 519-527.
3. Lipsky BA. Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Clinical Infectious Disease. 1997; 25: 1318-1326.
4. Eneroth M, Larsson J, Apelqvist J. Deep foot infections in patients with diabetes and foot ulcer: an entity with different characteristics, treatments, and prognosis. Journal of Diabetes Complications. 1999; 13: 254-263.
5. Resnick D. (Ed,). (2002)Diagnosis of bone and joint disorders. (Vol 3., 4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
6. Tehranzadeh J, Wong E, Wang F, et al. Imaging of osteomyelitis in the mature skeleton. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 2001; 39: 223-250.
7. Jurriaans E, Singh NP, Finlay K, et al. Imaging chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 2001; 39: 305-327.
8. Pichichero ME, Friesen HA. Polymicrobial osteomyelitis: report of three cases and a review of the literature. Reviews of Infectious Disease. 1982; 4: 86-96.
9. Grayson MI, Gibbons GW, Habershaw GM, et al. Use of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clinical Infectious Disease. 1994; 18: 683-693.
10. Lavery LA, Harkless LB, Ashry HR, et al. Infected punctures wounds in adults with diabetes: risk factors for osteomyelitis. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 1994; 33 (6): 561-566.
11. Greenwood JE, Edwards AT, McCollum CN. The possible role of ischaemia-reperfusion in the pathogenesis of chronic venous ulceration. Wounds. 1995; 7: 211-219.
12. Coleridge Smith PD. Oxygen, oxygen free radicals and reperfusion injury. Wounds.1996; 8: 9-15.
13. Kilgore KS, Todd III RF, Lucchesi BR. Reperfusion injury. In: Gallin JI, Snyderman R, editors. Inflammation: basic principles and clinical correlation. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999: 1047-1060.
14. Nixon J. The pathophysiology and etiology of pressure ulcers. In: Morrison M, editor. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Edinburgh: Mosby, 2001: 17-36.
15. Fagrell B, Jorneskog G, Intaglietta M. Disturbed microvascular reactivity and shunting – a major cause for diabetic complications. Vasc Med 1999; 4: 125-127.
16. Dinh TL, Veves A. Microcirculation of the diabetic foot. Curr Pharm Des 2005; 11: 2301-2309.
17. Dinh TL, Veves A. A review of the mechanisms implicated in the pathogenesis of the diabetic foot. Int J Low Exterm Wounds 2005; 4: 154-159.
18. Tooke JE, Brash PD. Microvascular aspects of diabetic foot disease. Disease. Diabet Med. 1996; 13 (Supp. 1): S26-S29.
19. Mustoe TA, O’Shaughnessy K, Kloeters O. Chronic wound pathogenesis and current treatment strategies. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2006; 117; 7S: 35S-41S.
20. Menke NB, Ward KR, Tarynn M, Bonchey DG, Diegelmann RF. Impaired wound healing. Clinics in Dermatology. 2007; 25 (1): 19-25.
21. Chen JWY, Rogers AA. Recent insights into the cause of chronic leg ulceration in venous diseases and implications on other types of chronic wounds. Wound Rep Reg. 2007; 15: 434-449.
22. Berendt AR, McNally M. Osteomyelitis. In Warrell DA, Cox TM, Firth JD. (Eds.) Oxford Textbook of Medicine (Vol 3. 5th Ed). (2010). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Osteomyelitis. Lancet. 2004; 364: 369-379.
24. Lipsky BA. Berendt AR. Osteomyelitis. 2010; URL: http://www.acpmedicine.com/acpmedicine/institutional/payPerAdd.action?chapterId=part. Downloaded on 2/12/11.
25. Berendt AR, Peters EJ, Bakker K. et al. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report on diagnosis and a systemic review of treatment. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. 2008; 24(Suppl 1): S145-S161.
26. Chatha DS, Cunningham PM, Schweitzer ME. MR imaging of the diabetic foot: diagnostic challenges. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 2005; 43 (4): 747-759.
27. Berendt AR, Lipsky B. Is this bone infected or not? differentiating neuro-osteoarthropathy from osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Current Diabetes Reports. 2004; 4 (6): 424-429.
28. Tan PL, Teh J. MRI of the diabetic foot: differentiation of infection from neuropathic changes. British Journal of Radiology. 2007; 80 (959): 939-948.
29. Gil HC, Morrison WB. MR imaging of diabetic foot infections. Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology. 2004; 8 (3): 189-198.
30. Snyder RJ, Kirsner RS, Warriner RA. et al. Consensus recommendation on advancing the standard of care for treating neuropathic foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Wounds. 2010; 56 (Suppl 4): S1-S24.
31. Kirsner RS, Herman WH, Funnell MM. et al. The standard of care for evaluation and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. ULR: http://www.cme-dfu.com. Downloaded on 2/12/11.
32. Croll SD, Nicholas GG, Osborne MA. et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in diabetic foot infections. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1996; 24 (2): 266-270.
33. Enderle MD, Coerper S, Schweizer HP. et al. Correlation of imaging techniques to histopathology in patients with diabetic foot syndrome and clinical suspicion of chronic osteomyelitis. The role of high-resolution ultrasound. Diabetes Care. 1999; 22 (2): 249-299.
34. Vartanians VM, Karchmer AW, Giurini JM, et al. Is there a role for imaging in the management of patients with diabetic foot? Skeletal Radiology. 2009; 38: 633-636.
35. Butalia S, Palda VA, Sergeant RJ. et al. Does this patient with diabetes have osteomyelitis of the lower extremity? Journal of the American Medical Association. 2008; 299 (7): 806-813.f
36. Dich VQ, Nelson JD, Haltalin KC. Osteomyelitis in infants and children. a review of 163 cases. American Journal of Disease of Children. 1975; 129: 1273-1278.
37. Howie DW, Savage JP, Wilson TG. et al. The technetium phosphate bone scan in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in childhood. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1983; 65: 431-437.
38. Scoles PV, Hilty MD, Sfakianakis GN. Bone scan patterns in acute osteomyelitis. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research. 1980; 135: 210-217.
39. Waldvogel FA, Medoff G, Swartz MN. Osteomyelitis: a review of clinical features, therapeutic considerations and unusual aspects. Part 1. New England Journal of Medicine. 1970; 282: 198-206.
40. Bowen K. Managing foot infections in patients with diabetes. Australian Prescriber. 2007; 30 (1): 21-24.
41. Gentry LO. Osteomyelitis: options for diagnosis and management. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1988; 21 (Suppl C): 115-128.
42. Ranachowska C, Lass P, Korzon-Burakowska A. et al. Diagnostic imaging of the diabetic foot. Nuclear Medicine Reviews. 2010; 13 (1): 18-22.
43. Leese G, Nathwani D, Young M. et al. Use of antibiotics in people with diabetic foot disease: a consensus statement. The Diabetic Foot Journal. 2009; 12 (2): 1-10.
44. Hartemann-Heurtier A, Senneville E. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Diabetes & Metabolism. 2008; 34 (2): 87-95.
45. Howard CB, Einhorn M, Dagan R. et al. Fine-Needle biopsy to diagnosis osteomyelitis. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br). 1994; 76-B: 311-314.
46. Jorda M, Rey L, Hanly A. et al. Fine needle aspiration cytology of bone. Cancer Cytopathology. 2000; 90: 47-54.
47. White LM, Schweitzer ME, Deely DM. et al. Study of osteomyelitis: utility of combined histologic and microbiologic evaluation of percutaneous biopsy samples. Radiology. 1995: 197: 840-842.
48. Latyfield LJ, Dodd LG, Hirschowitz S. et al. Fine-needle aspiration of primary osseous lesions: a cost effectiveness study. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2010; 38 (4): 239-243.
49. Golub L, Lee H, Ryan ME. et al. Tetracyclines inhibit connective tissue breakdown by multiple non-antimicrobial mechanisms. Advances in Dental Research. 1998; 12 (1): 12-26.
50. Shapira L, Soskolne W, Houri Y. et al. Protection against endotoxic shock and lipopolysaccharide-induced local inflammation by tetracycline: correlation with inhibition of cytokine secretion. Infection and Immunity. 1996; 64 (3): 825-828.
51. Thompson R, Harvin H, Liso S, Callery M. (1996) Doxycycline suppresses tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels in lipopolysaccharide-challenged rats. Academic dissertation held at Surgical Infection Society Meeting.
52. Gearing A, Beckett P, Christodoulou M. et al. Processing of tumor necrosis factor-α precursor by metalloproteinases. Nature. 1994; 370: 555-557.
53. Solomon A, Roenblatt M, Li DQ. et al. Doxycycline inhibition of interleukin-1 in the corneal epithelium. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2000; 41 (9): 2544-2557.
54. Kirkwood KL, Golub LM, Bradford PG. Non-antimicrobial and antimicrobial tetracyclines inhibit IL-6 expression in murine osteoblast. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1999; 878: 667-670.
55. Eady EA, Ingham E, Walters CE. et al. Modulation of Comedonal levels of interleukin-1 in acne patients treated with tetracyclines. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 1993; 101: 86-91.
56. Krakauer T, Buckley M. Doxycycline is anti-inflammatory and inhibits staphylococcal endotoxin-induced cytokines and Chemokines. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2003; 3630-3633.
57. Klosterhalfen B, Peters KM, Tons C. et al. Local and systemic inflammatory mediator release in patients with acute and chronic posttraumatic osteomyelitis. Journal of Trauma. 1996; 40: 372-378.
58. Mast BE, Schultz GS. Interactions of cytokines, growth factors, and proteases in acute and chronic wound. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 1996; 4: 411-420.
59. Schultz G Mast BA: Molecular analysis of the environment of healing and chronic wounds: cytokines, proteases, and growth factors. Wounds 1998; 10: (Suppl F): 1F.
60. Tranuzzer R. et al: (1997) Epidermal growth factor in wound healing: a model for the molecular pathogenesis of chronic wounds. In: Ziegler T, Pierce G, Herndon D, editors: Growth Factors and Wound Healing: Basic Science and Clinical Applications. Norwell, Mass, Springer.
61. Tranuzzer R, Schultz G. Biochemical analysis of acute and chronic wound environments. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 1996; 4: 321-3
62. Yager DR, Nwomeh BC. The proteolytic environment of chronic wounds. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 1999; 7 (6): 433-441.
63. Trengrove NJ, Langton SR, Stacey MC. Biochemical analysis of wound fluid from nonhealing and chronic leg ulcers. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 1996; 4 (2): 234-239.
64. Takashi Y, Shinya M, Daisuke M. et al. Local levels of interleukin-1β, -4, -6 and tumor necrosis factor-α in an experimental model of murine osteomyelitis due to staphylococcus aureus. Cytokine. 2002; 19 (2): 59-65.
65. del Pozo JL, Yuste JR, Garcia-Quetglas E. et al. Efficacy of doxycycline in treatment of bone and prosthetic joint infections. 16th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease. Nice, France, April 1-4 2006. Abstract No. r2132.
66. Holmes SG, Still K, Buttle DJ. et al. Chemically modified tetracyclines act through multiple mechanisms directly on osteoclast precursors. Bone. 2004; 35: 471-478.
67. Vernillo AT. Rifkin BR. Effects of tetracyclines on bone metabolism. Advances in Dental Research. 1998. 12: 56-62.
68. Bettany JT, Wolowacz RG, Pelt NM. et al. Tetracyclines induce apoptosis in osteoclasts. American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, program abstract F071.
69. Gomes BC, Golub LM, Ramamurthy NS. Tetracyclines inhibit parathyroid hormone-induced bone resorption in organ culture. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 1984; 40 (11): 12273-1275.
70. Grevstad HJ, Boe OE. Effects of doxycycline on surgically induced osteoclast recruitment in the rat. Tetracyclines inhibit parathyroid hormone-induced bone resorption in organ culture. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 1995; 103 (3): 156-159.
71. Bezerra MM, Brito GA, Ribeiro RA, Rocha FA. Low-dose doxycycline prevents inflammatory bone resorption in rats. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2002; 35 (5): 613-616.
72. Lauhio A, Salo T, Ding Y, et al. In vivo inhibition of human neutrophil collagenase (MMP-8) activity during long-term combination of doxycycline and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) in acute reactive arthritis. Clinical and Experimental Immunology. 1994; 98: 21-28.
73. Greenwald RA, Moak SA, Ramamurthy NS Golub LM. Tetracyclines suppress matrix metalloproteinase activity in adjuvant arthritis and in combination with flurbiprofen, ameliorate bone damage. Journal of Rheumatology. 1992: 19 (6): 927-938.
74. Breedveld FC, Dijkmans BA, Mattie H. Minocycline treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: an open dose finding study. Journal of Rheumatology. 1990; 17 (1): 43-46.
75. Lauhio A, Leirisalo-Repo M, Lahdevirta J. et al. Double blind, placebo-controlled study of three-month treatment with lymecycline in reactive arthritis, with special reference to Chlamydia arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 1991; 34 (1): 6-14.
76. Lee H. Subantimicrobial Dose Doxycycline Efficacy as a Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibitor in Chronic Periodontitis Patients Is Enhanced When Combined With a Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug. Journal of Periodontology. 2004; 75 (3): 453-463.
77. Ramamurthy N, Leung S, Moak S, Greenwald RA, Golub L. 1993. CMT/NSAID combination increases bone CMT uptake and inhibits bone resorption. In Immunosuppressive and Anti-inflammatory Drugs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 696: 420-421.
Komentarze