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

Background: Diabetic 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. Methods: The 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: Diabetic 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 registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277788, identifier CRD42021277788.

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.

Racial disparities in symptomatology and outcomes of COVID-19 among adults of Arkansas.

Few reports have suggested that non-Hispanic (NH) blacks may present with different symptoms for COVID-19 than NH-whites. The objective of this study was to investigate patterns in symptomatology and COVID-19 outcomes by race/ethnicity among adults in Arkansas. Data on COVID-19 symptoms were collected on day of testing, 7th 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 race/ethnicity. A total of 60,648 individuals were RT-PCR tested from March 29, 2020 through October 7, 2020. Among adults testing positive, except shortness of breath, Hispanics were more likely to report all symptoms than NH-whites or NH-blacks. NH-whites were more likely to report fever (19.6% vs. 16.6%), cough (27.5% vs. 26.1%), shortness of breath (13.6% vs. 9.6%), sore throat (16.7% vs. 10.7%), chills (12.5% vs. 11.8%), muscle pain (15.6% vs. 12.4%), and headache (20.3% vs. 17.8%). NH-blacks were more likely to report loss of taste/smell (10.9% vs. 10.6%). To conclude, we found differences in COVID-19 symptoms by race/ethnicity, with NH-blacks and Hispanics more often affected with specific or all symptoms, compared to NH-whites. Due to the cross-sectional study design, these findings do not necessarily reflect biological differences by race/ethnicity; however, they suggest that certain race/ethnicities may have underlying differences in health status that impact COVID-19 outcomes.

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.

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

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.