Studying on the Difference Between Two Kinds of Osteomyelitis

NCT ID: NCT04240964

Last Updated: 2020-01-27

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

28 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2017-07-01

Study Completion Date

2018-12-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

To explore the microbial differences of diabetic foot osteomyelitis and osteomyelitis without diabetes.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (Dd group) subjects (sample size ≥ 10 cases) and foot osteomyelitis without diabetes (ND group) subjects (sample size ≥ 10 cases) were collected in accordance with the inclusion criteria. Surgeons collected intra-operative bone specimens from all 28 patients who required surgical intervention (debridement or amputation) for management of their osteomyelitis\[10\]. Avoided soft tissue or sinus tract cultures, because they were not sufficiently accurate in predicting bone pathogens\[11\]. Following surgical debridement of infected or necrotic tissue, cleansed by sterile saline solution, deep bone specimens were harvested using sterile instruments. We routinely obtained adequate bone specimens and divided them into three parts. One for routine microbiology culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing, one for the histopathology, and the other one for DNA sequencing analysis. This process to obtain bone specimens could reduce chances of contamination by wound tissue colonizing bacteria.

16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing Two specimens were sent to the laboratory for conventional culturing and histopathological tests. The bone specimen left were placed in sterile pipes without any transport medium and stored at 4℃ for 24 hours and then frozen at -80C until DNA extraction. Genomic DNA was extracted using DNA extraction kit (YiRui,ShenZhen,China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Extracted DNA was quantitative and quality control by agarose gel electrophoresis(JS-power 300, PeiQin, ShangHai, China). Then we amplified the V3-V4 variable region of the 16S rRNA gene for sequencing using a forward and a reverse fusion primer-(341F:5'-CCTAYGGGRBGCASCAG-3' and 806R:5'-GGACTACNNGGGTATCTAAT-3)(ABI GeneAmp 9700 PCR Instrument). PCR products were amplified by removing short sequences, singleton sequences and noisy reads. The PCR reaction was performed in a total volume of 60 μl, containing 6 μl of 10× Ex Tap PCR buffer, 6 μl of dNTP mixture, 0.6μl of bovine serum albumin (BSA), 0.3 μl Ex Tag, 1μl DNA, 1.2μl forward and reverse primers, and 43.7 μlH 2O. The PCR amplification was conducted under following conditions: initial denaturing was conducted at 94°Cfor5min, which was followed by 27 cycles at94°Cfor30s, 55°Cfor30s, and72°C for 45s. A final extension was performed at 72°C for 10min from 28 samples (including DFO and SFO patients) were sequenced over two separate runs on Illumina Miseq. To get high-quality clean reads, raw reads were filtered according to the following rules: (1) remove reads containing morethan10% ofunknown nucleotides and(2) removereads containing less than 80% of bases with quality (Q-value)\>20. The filtered reads were then assembled into tags according to overlap between paired-end reads with more than 10bp overlap, and less than 2% mismatch. The software Mothur (v.1.34.0) was used to remove the redundant tags to get unique tags. The obtained unique tags were then used to calculate the abundance.Then we clustered sequences into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) using the Greengene. Taxonomy was assigned to OTUs using the BLASTto the Greengene database at 97% similarity to identify microorganisms at the genera level (species level where possible). A phylogenetic tree was built from aligned representative OTU sequences using figtree.The total species diversity in a landscape was determined by two different parameters, the mean species diversity in sites or habitats at a more local scale (alpha diversity) and the differentiation among those habitats (beta diversity). Alpha diversity included both community diversity and richness: community richness was represented by the ACE estimator or the Chao1 estimator. Beta diversity was the calculation of differences(distance) between microbiome community structure and membership based on the evolution of species. This kind of distance was calculated using Weighted Unifrac and can be performanced by Principal Co-ordinates Analysis diagram.

Metagenomes Analysis A metagenome DNA libraries from specimens were constructed using TruSeq Nano DNA kit (FC-121-4002) according to the manufacturer's instructions, with slight modifications. In brief, the length conformed DNA(350 bp) was obtained by sonication. DNA fragments were end-repaired and the appropriate library size was selected, then the samples were A-tailed and ligated to adapters. The NovaSeq 6000 sequencing systems(Illumina)were used for sequencing and library validation Raw Data obtained by sequencing have a certain proportion of low-quality dataaccording to the following rules: (1) remove reads containing morethan10% ofunknown nucleotides and(2) removereads containing less than 80% of bases with quality (Q-value)\>20 . Megahit was used to splice the sequences(clean data) after quality control, and contigs were obtained.Contigs were filtered below 1000bp. The vector and host sequences were filtered by BLASTN, with an E-value cutoff of 1e-5. The remaining reads were mapped to the human genome by SOAP alignment, and the matching reads were removed as being contaminants from the host genome.The taxonomic classifications were performed on assembled contigs and singletons using BLAST against the NCBI database. And the best BLAST hit was used to refer the taxonomic rank of each sequence. All the analyses have been performed in R and p values were corrected for multiple testing with the false discovery rate method.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis Diabetic Foot Infection Microbiome

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_CONTROL

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Dd group

Patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis

Intervention Type OTHER

ND group

Foot osteomyelitis without diabetes

Intervention Type OTHER

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. age≥18 years old.
2. diagnosed as foot osteomyelitis, and wounds were located below the knee joint.
3. nfected bone exposure or positive probe-to-bone test.
4. The patients were good physical condition.
5. Patients were able to tolerate debridement or operation treatment.
6. patients and their families agreed to participate in the study.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Serious skin diseases around the wound surface;
2. tumors affecting the wound of osteomyelitis;
3. long-term use of immunosuppressive therapy before admission;
4. patients that do not cooperate.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Ying Cao

associate professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

ying cao, doctor

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, NanFang Hospital, Southern Medical University

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

China

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Lavery LA, Peters EJ, Armstrong DG, Wendel CS, Murdoch DP, Lipsky BA. Risk factors for developing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot wounds. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009 Mar;83(3):347-52. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.11.030. Epub 2008 Dec 30.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19117631 (View on PubMed)

Berendt AR, Peters EJ, Bakker K, Embil JM, Eneroth M, Hinchliffe RJ, Jeffcoate WJ, Lipsky BA, Senneville E, Teh J, Valk GD. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report on diagnosis and a systematic review of treatment. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008 May-Jun;24 Suppl 1:S145-61. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.836.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18442163 (View on PubMed)

Valabhji J, Oliver N, Samarasinghe D, Mali T, Gibbs RG, Gedroyc WM. Conservative management of diabetic forefoot ulceration complicated by underlying osteomyelitis: the benefits of magnetic resonance imaging. Diabet Med. 2009 Nov;26(11):1127-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02828.x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19929991 (View on PubMed)

Huang Y, Cao Y, Zou M, Luo X, Jiang Y, Xue Y, Gao F. A Comparison of Tissue versus Swab Culturing of Infected Diabetic Foot Wounds. Int J Endocrinol. 2016;2016:8198714. doi: 10.1155/2016/8198714. Epub 2016 Mar 30.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27123004 (View on PubMed)

Goda A, Maruyama F, Michi Y, Nakagawa I, Harada K. Analysis of the factors affecting the formation of the microbiome associated with chronic osteomyelitis of the jaw. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 May;20(5):O309-17. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12400. Epub 2013 Nov 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24112138 (View on PubMed)

Redel H, Gao Z, Li H, Alekseyenko AV, Zhou Y, Perez-Perez GI, Weinstock G, Sodergren E, Blaser MJ. Quantitation and composition of cutaneous microbiota in diabetic and nondiabetic men. J Infect Dis. 2013 Apr;207(7):1105-14. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit005. Epub 2013 Jan 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23300163 (View on PubMed)

Zou M, Cai Y, Hu P, Cao Y, Luo X, Fan X, Zhang B, Wu X, Jiang N, Lin Q, Zhou H, Xue Y, Gao F. Analysis of the Composition and Functions of the Microbiome in Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis Based on 16S rRNA and Metagenome Sequencing Technology. Diabetes. 2020 Nov;69(11):2423-2439. doi: 10.2337/db20-0503. Epub 2020 Aug 14.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 32801139 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

NFEC-2017-013

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.