Prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: A summary guidance for daily practice 2015, based on the IWGDF Guidance Documents

In this 'Summary Guidance for Daily Practice', we describe the basic principles of prevention and management of foot problems in persons with diabetes. This summary is based on the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidance 2015. There are five key elements that underpin prevention of foot problems: (1) identification of the at-risk foot; (2) regular inspection and examination of the at-risk foot; (3) education of patient, family and healthcare providers; (4) routine wearing of appropriate footwear, and; (5) treatment of pre-ulcerative signs. Healthcare providers should follow a standardized and consistent strategy for evaluating a foot wound, as this will guide further evaluation and therapy. The following items must be addressed: type, cause, site and depth, and signs of infection. There are seven key elements that underpin ulcer treatment: (1) relief of pressure and protection of the ulcer; (2) restoration of skin perfusion; (3) treatment of infection; (4) metabolic control and treatment of co-morbidity; (5) local wound care; (6) education for patient and relatives, and; (7) prevention of recurrence. Finally, successful efforts to prevent and manage foot problems in diabetes depend upon a well-organized team, using a holistic approach in which the ulcer is seen as a sign of multi-organ disease, and integrating the various disciplines involved.

The association of chronic kidney disease and dialysis treatment with foot ulceration and major amputation

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4-5 and dialysis treatment on incidence of foot ulceration and major lower extremity amputation in comparison to CKD stage 3. Methods In this retrospective study, all individuals who visited our hospital between 2006 and 2012 because of CKD stages 3 to 5 or dialysis treatment were included. Medical records were reviewed for incidence of foot ulceration and major amputation. The time from CKD 3, CKD 4-5, and dialysis treatment until first foot ulceration and first major lower extremity amputation was calculated and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Diabetes mellitus, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy, and foot deformities were included for potential confounding. Results A total of 669 individuals were included: 539 in CKD 3, 540 in CKD 4-5, and 259 in dialysis treatment (individuals could progress from one group to the next). Unadjusted foot ulcer incidence rates per 1000 patients per year were 12 for CKD 3, 47 for CKD 4-5, and 104 for dialysis (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, the hazard ratio for incidence of foot ulceration was 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-6.3) in CKD 4-5 and 7.6 (95% CI, 4.8-12.1) in dialysis treatment compared with CKD 3. Hazard ratios for incidence of major amputation were 9.5 (95% CI, 2.1-43.0) and 15 (95% CI, 3.3-71.0), respectively. Conclusions CKD 4-5 and dialysis treatment are independent risk factors for foot ulceration and major amputation compared with CKD 3. Maximum effort is needed in daily clinical practice to prevent foot ulcers and their devastating consequences in all individuals with CKD 4-5 or dialysis treatment.

Statistical analysis of spectral data: A methodology for designing an intelligent monitoring system for the diabetic foot

Early detection of (pre-)signs of ulceration on a diabetic foot is valuable for clinical practice. Hyperspectral imaging is a promising technique for detection and classification of such (pre-)signs. However, the number of the spectral bands should be limited to avoid overfitting, which is critical for pixel classification with hyperspectral image data. The goal was to design a detector/classifier based on spectral imaging (SI) with a small number of optical bandpass filters. The performance and stability of the design were also investigated. The selection of the bandpass filters boils down to a feature selection problem. A dataset was built, containing reflectance spectra of 227 skin spots from 64 patients, measured with a spectrometer. Each skin spot was annotated manually by clinicians as "healthy" or a specific (pre-)sign of ulceration. Statistical analysis on the data set showed the number of required filters is between 3 and 7, depending on additional constraints on the filter set. The stability analysis revealed that shot noise was the most critical factor affecting the classification performance. It indicated that this impact could be avoided in future SI systems with a camera sensor whose saturation level is higher than 106, or by postimage processing.

IWGDF guidance on the prevention of foot ulcers in at-risk patients with diabetes

Recommendations - 1 To identify a person with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration, examine the feet annually to seek evidence for signs or symptoms of peripheral neuropathy and peripheral artery disease. (GRADE strength of recommendation: strong; Quality of evidence: low) - 2 In a person with diabetes who has peripheral neuropathy, screen for a history of foot ulceration or lower-extremity amputation, peripheral artery disease, foot deformity, pre-ulcerative signs on the foot, poor foot hygiene and ill-fitting or inadequate footwear. (Strong; Low) - 3 Treat any pre-ulcerative sign on the foot of a patient with diabetes. This includes removing callus, protecting blisters and draining when necessary, treating ingrown or thickened toe nails, treating haemorrhage when necessary and prescribing antifungal treatment for fungal infections. (Strong; Low) - 4 To protect their feet, instruct an at-risk patient with diabetes not to walk barefoot, in socks only, or in thin-soled standard slippers, whether at home or when outside. (Strong; Low) - 5 Instruct an at-risk patient with diabetes to daily inspect their feet and the inside of their shoes, daily wash their feet (with careful drying particularly between the toes), avoid using chemical agents or plasters to remove callus or corns, use emollients to lubricate dry skin and cut toe nails straight across. (Weak; Low) - 6 Instruct an at-risk patient with diabetes to wear properly fitting footwear to prevent a first foot ulcer, either plantar or non-plantar, or a recurrent non-plantar foot ulcer. When a foot deformity or a pre-ulcerative sign is present, consider prescribing therapeutic shoes, custom-made insoles or toe orthosis. (Strong; Low) - 7 To prevent a recurrent plantar foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, prescribe therapeutic footwear that has a demonstrated plantar pressure-relieving effect during walking (i.e. 30% relief compared with plantar pressure in standard of care therapeutic footwear) and encourage the patient to wear this footwear. (Strong; Moderate) - 8 To prevent a first foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, provide education aimed at improving foot care knowledge and behaviour, as well as encouraging the patient to adhere to this foot care advice. (Weak; Low) - 9 To prevent a recurrent foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, provide integrated foot care, which includes professional foot treatment, adequate footwear and education. This should be repeated or re-evaluated once every 1 to 3 months as necessary. (Strong; Low) - 10 Instruct a high-risk patient with diabetes to monitor foot skin temperature at home to prevent a first or recurrent plantar foot ulcer. This aims at identifying the early signs of inflammation, followed by action taken by the patient and care provider to resolve the cause of inflammation. (Weak; Moderate) - 11 Consider digital flexor tenotomy to prevent a toe ulcer when conservative treatment fails in a high-risk patient with diabetes, hammertoes and either a pre-ulcerative sign or an ulcer on the distal toe. (Weak; Low) - 12 Consider Achilles tendon lengthening, joint arthroplasty, single or pan metatarsal head resection, or osteotomy to prevent a recurrent foot ulcer when conservative treatment fails in a high-risk patient with diabetes and a plantar forefoot ulcer. (Weak; Low) - 13 Do not use a nerve decompression procedure in an effort to prevent a foot ulcer in an at-risk patient with diabetes, in preference to accepted standards of good quality care. (Weak; Low)

A shift in priority in diabetic foot care and research: 75% of foot ulcers are preventable

Diabetic foot ulceration poses a heavy burden on the patient and the healthcare system, but prevention thereof receives little attention. For every euro spent on ulcer prevention, ten are spent on ulcer healing, and for every randomized controlled trial conducted on prevention, ten are conducted on healing. In this article, we argue that a shift in priorities is needed. For the prevention of a first foot ulcer, we need more insight into the effect of interventions and practices already applied globally in many settings. This requires systematic recording of interventions and outcomes, and well-designed randomized controlled trials that include analysis of cost-effectiveness. After healing of a foot ulcer, the risk of recurrence is high. For the prevention of a recurrent foot ulcer, home monitoring of foot temperature, pressure-relieving therapeutic footwear, and certain surgical interventions prove to be effective. The median effect size found in a total of 23 studies on these interventions is large, over 60%, and further increases when patients are adherent to treatment. These interventions should be investigated for efficacy as a state-of-the-art integrated foot care approach, where attempts are made to assure treatment adherence. Effect sizes of 75-80% may be expected. If such state-of-the-art integrated foot care is implemented, the majority of problems with foot ulcer recurrence in diabetes can be resolved. It is therefore time to act and to set a new target in diabetic foot care. This target is to reduce foot ulcer incidence with at least 75%.

The 2015 IWGDF guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: Development of an evidence-based global consensus

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based, internationally appropriate diabetic foot care guidance is likely among the most cost-effective forms of healthcare expenditure, provided it is goal-focused and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing and updating international Practical Guidelines since 1999. The 2015 updates are based on systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations are formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. As such, we changed the name from 'Practical Guidelines' to 'Guidance'. In this article we describe the development of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. This Guidance consists of five documents, prepared by five working groups of international experts. These documents provide guidance related to foot complications in persons with diabetes on: prevention; footwear and offloading; peripheral artery disease; infections; and, wound healing interventions. Based on these five documents, the IWGDF Editorial Board produced a summary guidance for daily practice. The resultant of this process, after reviewed by the Editorial Board and by international IWGDF members of all documents, is an evidence-based global consensus on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Plans are already under way to implement this Guidance. We believe that following the recommendations of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance will almost certainly result in improved management of foot problems in persons with diabetes and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the tragedies caused by these foot problems.

Marked increase in proton pump inhibitors use in Australia

Objectives: To examine the trends in the prescribing of subsidised proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine receptor antagonists (H2RAs), in the Australian population from 1995 to 2006 to encourage discussion regarding appropriate clinical use. PPIs and H2RAs are the second highest drug cost to the publicly subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Design: Government data on numbers of subsidised scripts, quantity and doses for PPIs and H2RAs were analysed by gender and age, dose and indication. Main outcome measure: Drug utilisation as DDD [defined daily dose]/1000 population/day. Results: The use of combined PPIs increased by 1318%. Utilisation increased substantially after the relaxation of the subsidised indications for PPIs in 2001. Omeprazole had the largest market share but was substituted by its S-enantiomer esomeprazole after its introduction in 2002. There was considerable use in the elderly with the peak use being in those aged 80 years and over. The utilisation of H2RAs declined 72% over 12 years. Conclusions: PPI use has increased substantially, not only due to substitution of H2RAs but to expansion in the overall market. Utilisation does not appear to be commensurate with prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) nor with prescribing guidelines for PPIs, with significant financial costs to patients and PBS. This study encourages clinical discussion regarding quality use of these medicines. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Prevalence of foot disease and risk factors in general inpatient populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To systematically review studies reporting the prevalence in general adult inpatient populations of foot disease disorders (foot wounds, foot infections, collective ‘foot disease’) and risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity). Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2013 was undertaken using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Keywords and synonyms relating to prevalence, inpatients, foot disease disorders and risk factors were used. Studies reporting foot disease or risk factor prevalence data in general inpatient populations were included. Included study's reference lists and citations were searched and experts consulted to identify additional relevant studies. 2 authors, blinded to each other, assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Applicable data were extracted by 1 author and checked by a second author. Prevalence proportions and SEs were calculated for all included studies. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects models where 3 eligible studies were available. Results: Of the 4972 studies initially identified, 78 studies reporting 84 different cohorts (total 60 231 517 participants) were included. Foot disease prevalence included: foot wounds 0.01–13.5% (70 cohorts), foot infections 0.05–6.4% (7 cohorts), collective foot disease 0.2–11.9% (12 cohorts). Risk factor prevalence included: PAD 0.01–36.0% (10 cohorts), PN 0.003–2.8% (6 cohorts), foot deformity was not reported. Pooled prevalence estimates were only able to be calculated for pressure ulcer-related foot wounds 4.6% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.4%)), diabetes-related foot wounds 2.4% (1.5% to 3.4%), diabetes-related foot infections 3.4% (0.2% to 6.5%), diabetes-related foot disease 4.7% (0.3% to 9.2%). Heterogeneity was high in all pooled estimates (I2=94.2–97.8%, p<0.001). Conclusions: This review found high heterogeneity, yet suggests foot disease was present in 1 in every 20 inpatients and a major risk factor in 1 in 3 inpatients. These findings are likely an underestimate and more robust studies are required to provide more precise estimates.

How do Australian podiatrists manage patients with diabetes The Australian diabetic foot management survey

Background Diabetic foot complications are the leading cause of lower extremity amputation and diabetes-related hospitalisation in Australia. Studies demonstrate significant reductions in amputations and hospitalisation when health professionals implement best practice management. Whilst other nations have surveyed health professionals on specific diabetic foot management, to the best of the authors’ knowledge this appears not to have occurred in Australia. The primary aim of this study was to examine Australian podiatrists’ diabetic foot management compared with best practice recommendations by the Australian National Health Medical Research Council. Methods A 36-item Australian Diabetic Foot Management survey, employing seven-point Likert scales (0 = Never; 7 = Always) to measure multiple aspects of best practice diabetic foot management was developed. The survey was briefly tested for face and content validity. The survey was electronically distributed to Australian podiatrists via professional associations. Demographics including sex, years treating patients with diabetes, employment-sector and patient numbers were also collected. Chi-squared and Mann Whitney U tests were used to test differences between sub-groups. Results Three hundred and eleven podiatrists responded; 222 (71%) were female, 158 (51%) from the public sector and 11–15 years median experience. Participants reported treating a median of 21–30 diabetes patients each week, including 1–5 with foot ulcers. Overall, participants registered median scores of at least “very often” (>6) in their use of most items covering best practice diabetic foot management. Notable exceptions were: “never” (1 (1 – 3)) using total contact casting, “sometimes” (4 (2 – 5)) performing an ankle brachial index, “sometimes” (4 (1 – 6)) using University of Texas Wound Classification System, and “sometimes” (4 (3 – 6) referring to specialist multi-disciplinary foot teams. Public sector podiatrists reported higher use or access on all those items compared to private sector podiatrists (p < 0.01). Conclusions This study provides the first baseline information on Australian podiatrists’ adherence to best practice diabetic foot guidelines. It appears podiatrists manage large caseloads of people with diabetes and are generally implementing best practice guidelines recommendations with some notable exceptions. Further studies are required to identify barriers to implementing these recommendations to ensure all Australians with diabetes have access to best practice care to prevent amputations.

What kind of sick person would see a Foot Doctor! The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS)

Background Many different guidelines recommend people with foot complications, or those at risk, should attend multiple health professionals for foot care each year. However, few studies have investigated the characteristics of those attending health professionals for foot care and if those characteristics match those requiring foot care as per guideline recommendations. The aim of this paper was to determine the associated characteristics of people who attended a health professional for foot care in the year prior to their hospitalisation. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, foot complication history, and, past health professional attendance for foot care in the year prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Two hundred and fifty-six (34.9% (95% CI) (31.6-38.4)) participants had attended a health professional for foot care; including attending podiatrists 180 (24.5%), GPs 93 (24.6%), and surgeons 36 (4.9%). In backwards stepwise multivariate analyses attending any health professional for foot care was independently associated (OR (95% CI)) with diabetes (3.0 (2.1-4.5)), arthritis (1.8 (1.3-2.6)), mobility impairment (2.0 (1.4-2.9)) and previous foot ulcer (5.4 (2.9-10.0)). Attending a podiatrist was independently associated with female gender (2.6 (1.7-3.9)), increasing years of age (1.06 (1.04-1.08), diabetes (5.0 (3.2-7.9)), arthritis (2.0 (1.3-3.0)), hypertension (1.7 (1.1-2.6) and previous foot ulcer (4.5 (2.4-8.1). While attending a GP was independently associated with having a foot ulcer (10.4 (5.6-19.2). Conclusions Promisingly these findings indicate that people with a diagnosis of diabetes and arthritis are more likely to attend health professionals for foot care. However, it also appears those with active foot complications, or significant risk factors, may not be more likely to receive the multi-disciplinary foot care recommended by guidelines. More concerted efforts are required to ensure all people with foot complications are receiving recommended foot care.

The tired foot. The effects of physical activity, energy expenditure and sleep on the diabetic foot population

Background The most common pathway to development of diabetes foot ulcers is repetitive daily activity stress on the plantar surface of the neuropathic foot. Studies suggest an association between different diabetic foot complications and physical activity. However, to the best of the authors knowledge the steps/day and sleep patterns of people with diabetic foot ulcers has yet to be investigated. This observational study aims to investigate the physical activity and sleep patterns of three groups of adults with type 2 diabetes and different foot complications Methods Participants with type 2 diabetes were recruited into three groups: 1. those with no reported foot complications (DNIL), 2. those with diagnosis of neuropathy (DPN) and 3. those with a neuropathic ulcer (DFU). Exclusion criteria included peripheral arterial disease and mobility aid use. Participants wore a SenseWear Pro 3 Armband continuously for 7 days and completed an Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The Armband is a validated automated measure of activity (walking steps, average Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET), physical activity (>3 METs) duration), energy expenditure(kJ) (total and physical activity (>3 METs)) and sleep (duration). Data on age, sex, BMI, diabetes duration and HbA1c were also collected. Results Sixty-Six (14 DNIL, 22 DPN and 30 DFU's participants were recruited; 71% males, mean age 61(±12) years, diabetes duration 13(±9) years, HbA1c 8.3(±2.8), BMI 32.6(±5.9), average METs 1.2(0.2). Significant differences were reported in mean(SD) steps/day (5,859(±2,381) in DNIL; 5,007(±3,349) in DPN and 3,271(±2,417) in DFU's and daily energy expenditure (10,868(±1,307)kJ in DNIL; 11,060(±1,916)kJ in DPN and 13,006(± 3,559) in DFU's(p <0.05). No significant differences were reported for average METs, physical activity duration or energy expenditure, sleep time or Epworth score (p>0.1). Conclusions Preliminary findings suggest people with diabetes are sedentary. Results indicate that patients with a diabetic foot ulcer work significantly less than those with neuropathy or nil complications and use significantly more energy to do so. Sleep Parameters showed no differences. Recruitment is still on going.