Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers

Background The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Search methods In December 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. Main results We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. Authors' conclusions The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.

Elucidating the neuropsychological profile of apathetic syndrome and disinhibition syndrome in a brain-injured population in Oman

The purpose of this study was to compare the neuropsychological performance of two frontal dysexecutive phenotypes - disinhibited&' syndrome (DS) and &'apathetic&' syndrome (AS) following a traumatic brain injury in a non-western population, Oman. Methods: The study compared the performance of DS and AS in neuropsychological measures including those tapping into verbal reasoning ability/working memory/attention planning/goal-directed behavior and affective ranges. Results: The present analysis showed that DS and AS participants did not differ on indices measuring working memory/attention and affective ranges. However, the two cohorts differed significantly in measures of planning/goal-directed behaviour. Conclusion: This study lays the groundwork for further scrutiny in delineating the different characteristics of what has been previously labelled as frontal dysexecutive phenotype. This study indicates that DS and AS are marked with specific neuropsychological deficits.

Review of Diagnostic Screening Instruments for Alcohol and Other Drug Use and Other Psychiatric Disorders

In recent years there has been a growing recognition that many people with drug or alcohol problems are also experiencing a range of other psychiatric and psychological problems. The presence of concurrent psychiatric or psychological problems is likely to impact on the success of treatment services. These problems vary greatly, from undetected major psychiatric illnesses that meet internationally accepted diagnostic criteria such as those outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (1994), to less defined feelings of low mood and anxiety that do not meet diagnostic criteria but nevertheless impact on an individual’s sense of wellbeing and affect their quality of life. Similarly, the presence of a substance misuse problem among those suffering from a major psychiatric illness, often goes undetected. For example, the use of illicit drugs such as cannabis and amphetamine is higher among those individuals suffering from schizophrenia (Hall, 1992) and the misuse of alcohol in people suffering from schizophrenia is well documented (e.g., Gorelick et al., 1990; Searles et al., 1990; Soyka et al., 1993). High rates of alcohol misuse have also been reported in a number of groups including women presenting for treatment with a primary eating disorder (Holderness, Brooks Gunn, & Warren, 1994), individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (Seidel, Gusman and Aubueg, 1994), and those suffering from anxiety and depression. Despite considerable evidence of high levels of co-morbidity, drug and alcohol treatment agencies and mainstream psychiatric services often fail to identify and respond to concurrent psychiatric or drug and alcohol problems, respectively. The original review was conducted as a first step in providing clinicians with information on screening and diagnostic instruments that may be used to assess previously unidentified co-morbidity. The current revision was conducted to extend the original review by updating psychometric findings on measures in the original review, and incorporating other frequently used measures that were not previously included. The current revision has included information regarding special populations, specifically Indigenous Australians, older persons and adolescents. The objectives were to: ● update the original review of AOD and psychiatric screening/diagnostic instruments, ● recommend when these instruments should be used, by whom and how they should be interpreted, ● identify limitations and provide recommendations for further research, ● refer the reader to pertinent Internet sites for further information and/or purchasing of assessment instruments.