Birth prevalence of isolated congenital limb reduction defects in Texas 1999--2001

Objective. Congenital limb defects are common birth defects occurring in approximately 2-7/10,000 live births. Because congenital limb defects are pervasive throughout all populations, and the conditions profoundly affect quality of life, they represent a significant public health concern. Currently there is a paucity of etiologic information in the literature regarding congenital limb reduction defects which represents a major limitation in developing treatment strategies as well as identifying high risk pregnancies. ^ Additionally, despite the fact that the majority of congenital limb reduction defects are isolated, most previous studies have not separated them from those occurring as part of a known syndrome or with multiple additional congenital anomalies of unknown etiology. It stands to reason that factors responsible for multiple congenital anomalies that happen to include congenital limb reduction defects may be quite different from those factors leading to an isolated congenital limb reduction defect. ^ As a first step toward gaining etiologic understanding, this cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine the birth prevalence and obtain demographic information about non-syndromic (isolated) congenital limb reduction defects that occurred in Texas from 1999-2001. ^ Methods. The study population included all infants/fetuses with isolated congenital limb reduction defects born in Texas during 1999-2001; the comparison population was all infants who were born to mothers who were residents of Texas during the same period of time. The overall birth prevalence of limb reduction defects was determined and adjusted for ethnicity, gender, site of defect (upper limb versus lower limb), county of residence, maternal age and maternal education. ^ Results. In Texas, the overall birth prevalence of isolated CLRDs was 2.1/10,000 live births (1.5 and 0.6/10,000 live births for upper limb and lower limb, respectively). ^ The risk of isolated lower limb CLRDs in Texas was significantly lower in females when gender was examined individually (crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.57, 95% CI of 0.36-0.91) as well as in relation to all other variables used in the analysis (adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.58, 95% CI of 0.36-0.93). ^ Harris County (which includes the Houston metropolitan area) had significantly lower risks of all (upper limb and lower limb combined) isolated CLRDs when examined in relation to other counties in Texas, with a crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.29-0.72) and an adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.31-0.80). The risk of isolated upper limb CLRDs was significantly lower in Harris County (crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.45, CI of 0.26-0.76 and adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.49, CI of 0.28-0.84). This trend toward decreased risk in Harris County was not observed for isolated lower limb reduction defects (adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.22-1.12). ^ Conclusions. The birth prevalence of isolated congenital limb reduction defects in Texas is in the lower limits of the range of rates that have been reported by other authors for other states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington) and other countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, England, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Venezuela). In Texas, the birth prevalence of isolated congenital lower limb reduction defects was greater for males than females, while the birth prevalence of isolated congenital upper limb reduction defects was not significantly different between males and females. The reduced rates of limb reduction defects in Harris County warrant further investigation. This study has provided an important first step toward gaining etiologic understanding in the study of isolated congenital limb reduction defects. ^

The impact of a brief foot care intervention for persons with diabetes

Purpose of the study. The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to determine if a brief intervention would improve foot self-care behaviors in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes who presented to the emergency department for non-emergent care in a predominantly Hispanic southwestern border community. ^ Methods. A pre-post-test, three-group design was used to compare the foot self-care behaviors of patients who received usual care to those who received lower extremity amputation (LEA) risk assessment and to those who received LEA risk assessment plus a brief foot self-care intervention. After being randomized into 3 groups (N = 167), baseline assessments of demographics, diabetes history, acculturation, and the Summary of Diabetes Self Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaire and Modified Insulin Management Diabetes Self Efficacy Scale (MIMDSES) were completed in English or Spanish. At one-month, 144 (84%) participants were available for follow-up by the research assistant masked to group assignment. ^ Results. At baseline, significant differences in foot self-care behaviors and self monitoring blood glucose were noted based on ethnicity and gender. Men had significantly lower confidence in their ability to manage their diabetes overall. There was a significant difference between baseline and follow up self reported foot self-care behaviors within the intervention group (t (47) = −4.32, p < .01) and the control group (t (46) = −2.06, p < .05). There were no significant differences between groups for self-reported foot self-care behaviors. There was a significant difference in observed foot self-care behaviors between groups (F(2,135) = 2.99, p < .05). Self-efficacy scores were positively correlated with self-reported self-care behaviors. ^ Conclusions. This predominantly Hispanic population with type 2 diabetes reported performing diabetes self-care behaviors less than five days a week. There were within group changes, but no significant between group changes in reported self-care behaviors. However, at the one month follow up, there were significant differences between groups in observed foot self-care behaviors with the intervention group demonstrating the most accurate behaviors. Differences based on gender and ethnicity emphasize the need to individualize diabetes education. Priorities for culturally competent diabetes education, approaches to increasing self-efficacy and future research directions are suggested. ^

The influence of socioeconomic status on the relationship between diabetes and amputations: A systematic review of the literature

This paper synthesizes the current knowledge available regarding the impact of socioeconomic status on diabetes and amputations. In September 2009, searches in the OVID Medline and PubMed databases were performed using keywords associated with race/ethnicity, educational level, insurance status, veteran status, low income, diabetes, and lower extremity amputation. Articles published between 1996 and the search date were used. The pertinent articles were analyzed, summarized, and synthesized. ^ The majority of the articles agreed that African American, American Indian, and Latino minorities experience significantly higher rates of diabetes-related lower extremity amputation (LEA) when compared to whites. Few articles suggested that the disparity experienced by minorities and others of low SES was due to biology; most articles link it to a combination of lower income, lower educational attainment, uninsured or underinsured status, and a greater prevalence of detrimental health behaviors such as smoking. These, in turn, are linked to decreased knowledge of self-care, delayed health care seeking, delayed diagnoses and treatment, discrimination, and low quality health care. Interventions focused on patient education, established regimens of treatment, foot care, and control of diabetes have been shown to be effective, although none have lowered the rate of diabetes-related LEA to rates found in the general population.^