top of page
Search

Managing Osteomyelitis in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: The Role of Radiographs & Cytokine Modulation

Updated: May 15

Osteomyelitis remains one of the most serious complications in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), often leading to prolonged healing timelines, higher costs, and avoidable amputations. For hospitals and outpatient wound centers, improving early detection and targeted interventions can change the clinical trajectory—and the financial outcome.


At Shared Health Services, we help hospitals tackle complex wound care challenges—like osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs)—by delivering strategic tools, clinical insight, and operational support. In this post, we explore two often-overlooked strategies in DFU care that can help teams act earlier, treat smarter, and elevate care quality: serial radiographs and cytokine modulation.


Understanding the Progression of Osteomyelitis


mage showing a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) with visible wound on the sole of the foot, alongside an X-ray image highlighting bone involvement indicative of osteomyelitis.

Osteomyelitis occurs in three overlapping stages—acute, subacute, and chronic—with transitions that are often poorly defined.⁵ Importantly, a progression from acute to subacute or chronic typically signals that prior therapeutic efforts were either inadequate or misapplied.⁶ This presents a high-stakes challenge in diabetic foot ulcers, where early treatment missteps can escalate rapidly into limb-threatening complications.


DFUs are typically polymicrobial⁸ and driven by pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, β-hemolytic streptococci, and aerobic gram-negative rods⁷. The infection generally spreads contiguously from surrounding soft tissue, though direct inoculation via puncture wounds is also a concern¹⁰.


Diabetic Ulcers: A Perfect Storm for Chronic Inflammation


DFUs often begin with microtrauma or prolonged pressure, leading to ischemia-reperfusion injury—setting the stage for chronic inflammation before the wound even breaks the surface.¹¹–²⁰ In these pre-ulcerative tissues, we see leukocyte buildup and extravasation, elevated inflammatory cytokines, tissue-destructive proteinase activity, and vascular fibrosis—hallmarks of both chronic inflammation and ischemia-reperfusion injury.¹³–²¹ This pre-ulcerative stage is often underrecognized, even though the diabetic foot is already in a chronic inflammatory state well before the ulcer becomes visible.


For hospitals, this means patients are often presenting late in the game. Early tissue stress is missed, and by the time visible ulceration occurs, the wound bed is already compromised.


Bone Involvement: The Invisible Threat


Once bacteria enter soft tissue, inflammation intensifies and local blood flow deteriorates. Edema and thrombosis within vessels reduce oxygenation, leading to hypoxic tissue and bone infarctions.²² Unchecked, the infection can propagate on and beneath the periosteum, stripping it from its bond with the cortical bone and allowing it to track extensively along the bone’s length and circumference.²³ Because the outer cortex relies on the periosteum for vascular supply, its loss can lead to widespread necrosis affecting the entire bone.²² From there, pathogens gain access to the bone marrow via Volkmann’s and Haversian canals.²⁴


This anatomical progression highlights why bone involvement in DFUs must be suspected early—even when clinical signs are subtle or absent.


Identifying Osteomyelitis Early: The Role of Clinical Features in DFUs


Soft tissue infections in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are often clinically obvious, but the diagnosis of underlying osteomyelitis can be challenging. Accurate diagnosis is crucial to ensure appropriate treatment, as untreated osteomyelitis can lead to prolonged healing times, higher costs, and even amputations. Bone histology and bone cultures are considered the gold standard for diagnosing osteomyelitis. However, these criteria can be difficult to satisfy in many cases, especially when bone biopsies are not practical.


In Wagner grade 1 and 2 ulcers, osteomyelitis should be suspected if the ulcer fails to heal despite appropriate care and off-loading, or if bone is visible or palpable with a metal probe. In such cases, serial imaging and clinical evaluation should guide further treatment decisions. Early detection of osteomyelitis is essential to avoid delays in intervention that can worsen patient outcomes.


Diagnosing Osteomyelitis: Why Radiographs Still Matter


Bone biopsies remain the gold standard for diagnosing osteomyelitis.²⁵ But they’re not always practical, particularly in outpatient or resource-limited settings. That’s why clinical assessments often rely on imaging, with MRI considered the most sensitive tool.²⁶–³¹


However, plain radiographs are a critical first-line diagnostic tool. They are the go-to method for evaluating infection, foreign bodies, and deformities. Radiographs are inexpensive, accessible, and especially helpful when a wound hasn’t progressed after 30 days of appropriate care.³⁰–³¹ They can identify deformities, gas, or foreign bodies—and, most importantly, bone infection.


While early-stage osteomyelitis may not appear radiographically for up to four weeks, over 90% of cases show detectable changes by day 28.³⁶–⁴⁰ Unfortunately, radiographs have limited sensitivity in the early stages of osteomyelitis, which can make diagnosis difficult before significant changes occur. Serial radiographs, however, can track progressive resorption, cortical damage, and periosteal elevation—hallmarks of bone infection—when performed at regular intervals.²⁷,³⁴,⁴¹,⁴²


In the case of non-healing diabetic foot ulcers, radiographs become invaluable if the ulcer fails to progress in the first 30 days of appropriate care. When healing stalls, serial radiographs provide the necessary insight to guide further treatment decisions.


Shared Health Services provides partner facilities with escalation pathways and clinical guidance to help wound care teams act sooner and more efficiently when healing stalls.


Fine-Needle Biopsy: Achieving Diagnostic Confidence


Combining radiographs with fine-needle bone biopsy strengthens diagnostic confidence. These biopsies allow both histologic and microbiologic analysis, helping to meet gold-standard diagnostic criteria.²³,⁴⁵–⁴⁸


While radiographs provide a useful first look, fine-needle biopsies offer the ability to confirm osteomyelitis with histological and microbiological analysis, providing a comprehensive diagnosis that strengthens clinical confidence.


Fine-needle biopsy has a reported sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 93%.⁴⁵ It can be performed at bedside or under radiological guidance, offering a viable option even in resource-limited environments.


Cytokine Modulation: A Targeted Therapeutic Pathway


Osteomyelitis isn’t just an infection—it’s an inflammatory disorder. Cytokines like tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) are potent bone-resorbing agents⁵⁷–⁶⁴. In chronic DFUs, these cytokines can be elevated by more than 100-fold.⁵⁸–⁶³


Because DOX and chemically modified tetracyclines (CMTs) have both antimicrobial and non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory properties, they help reduce levels of these cytokines.⁴⁹–⁵⁶ Evidence suggests that elevated TNF-α and IL-1β levels induced by infection are related to bone damage in early osteomyelitis.⁶⁴ In one clinical review, 11 patients with bone and prosthetic joint infections were successfully treated with DOX—with no serious side effects and strong outcomes.⁶⁵


These agents may also promote osteoclast apoptosis, further reducing bone degradation.⁶⁶–⁷¹ For wound care leaders, this represents an affordable, accessible adjunct worth exploring in consultation with infectious disease teams.


The NSAID Synergy


Evidence suggests a synergistic benefit between DOX/CMTs and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).⁷²–⁷⁷ NSAIDs improve DOX uptake into inflamed tissue, with some studies reporting an increase in oral doxycycline uptake by as much as 150% in inflamed areas. This enhanced uptake allows DOX to more effectively target therapeutic areas and penetrate the wound microenvironment.


While NSAIDs do not directly affect matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) functions, they potentiate the anti-collagenolytic/proteolytic effects of DOX/CMTs by reducing edema, thereby facilitating drug entry into sites of inflammation. This combination has shown promise in reducing tissue destruction and inflammation in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis models, and may offer significant applications in osteomyelitis care protocols as well.


Bringing It All Together: A Call for Strategic Innovation


These strategies represent actionable, evidence-backed opportunities for wound care leaders:


  • Use serial radiographs to detect bone changes in stalled DFUs. Clinical evidence already supports their use in diagnosing osteomyelitis in non-healing diabetic foot ulcers, with serial imaging offering valuable insight into disease progression.

  • Incorporate fine-needle biopsy to elevate diagnostic certainty, combining histological and microbiological analysis for more reliable osteomyelitis diagnosis.

  • Explore cytokine modulation therapies to target inflammation and bone resorption. While evidence for Doxycycline and CMTs is promising, further clinical trials exploring their use, particularly in combination with NSAIDs, may provide even stronger support for these treatments.


Cost-Saving Goals: Leveraging Diagnostics and Therapeutics for Efficient Care


Hospitals and outpatient centers are under increasing pressure to control costs while maintaining high-quality care. By integrating effective diagnostic tools like serial radiographs and advanced therapeutic strategies such as cytokine modulation, healthcare providers can enhance clinical outcomes and achieve significant cost savings.


Serial radiographs provide a low-cost, widely accessible diagnostic option to detect osteomyelitis early, before it progresses to more severe stages that may require expensive interventions such as surgery or extended hospital stays. By using radiographs to guide treatment decisions, hospitals can reduce unnecessary procedures, minimize complications, and streamline care pathways, resulting in significant cost reductions.


Similarly, cytokine modulation therapies like doxycycline and other chemically modified tetracyclines (CMTs) offer long-term cost benefits by reducing chronic inflammation, shortening healing times, and lowering the likelihood of complications that lead to rehospitalizations or prolonged treatments. These therapies can help hospitals and providers meet their cost-saving goals by improving patient outcomes and reducing the need for more expensive interventions.


Shared Health Services works alongside hospitals to implement these strategies, providing the tools, guidance, and frameworks necessary to optimize clinical outcomes and achieve cost savings. By combining evidence-backed diagnostic and therapeutic tools, hospitals can drive both clinical excellence and financial sustainability.


Integrating these strategies isn’t just about improving clinical results—it’s about driving efficiency and sustainability in a healthcare system focused on cost-effective care.


How SHS Empowers Hospitals to Put Knowledge Into Action


At Shared Health Services, our role is to provide the essential tools, operational support, and reimbursement guidance needed to turn evidence-based strategies into actionable results. We bridge the gap between strategy and execution by equipping hospitals with the framework, resources, and practical tools needed to implement innovative, cost-effective wound care solutions. We provide actionable protocols and resources designed to help hospitals efficiently implement these strategies, driving better clinical outcomes and financial sustainability.


By working directly with your wound care team, we align SHS’s evidence-based protocols and algorithms with your existing wound care practices. These customizable templates help guide your clinicians in navigating complex DFU cases, enhancing clinical effectiveness while optimizing operational efficiency. Our approach is focused on turning knowledge into action, empowering your wound care team to make informed decisions, improve clinical outcomes, and enhance operational efficiency..


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.


You Might Also Like:

Comments

bottom of page