Uso del test de cuantificación sensitiva para el estudio de la neuropatía de fibra pequeña

Introducción La mutación genética Val30Met de la proteína transtiretina (TTR) es causante de la polineuropatía amiloidótica familiar, comprometiendo en fases iniciales las fibras nerviosas pequeñas (mielinizadas Aδ y amielínicas tipo C), involucradas en funciones autonómicas, nocicepción, percepción térmica y sudoración. Los métodos neurofisiológicos convencionales, no logran detectar dichas anormalidades, retardando el inicio de tratamientos específicos para la enfermedad. Metodología El objetivo principal fue evaluar el test de cuantificación sensitiva (QST) como método de detección temprana de anormalidades de fibra pequeña, en individuos Val30Met, seguidos en el Hospital Universitario Santa María, Lisboa. Se clasificaron los pacientes en 3 grupos, según sintomatología y examen neurológico. Se analizaron los umbrales para percepción de frío, dolor con el calor y vibración en los grupos, en correlación con controles sanos. Resultados 18 registros de controles sanos y 33 de individuos con la mutación, divididos en asintomáticos (24,2%), sintomáticos con examen neurológico normal (42,4%) y sintomáticos con examen neurológico anormal (33,3%). No se encontraron diferencias entre los pacientes asintomáticos y los controles. Los umbrales para frío (p=0,042) y en el dolor intermedio con el calor (HP 5) (p=0,007) se encuentran elevados en individuos Val30Met sintomáticos con examen normal. En los pacientes sintomáticos con alteraciones al examen, también se presentaron alteraciones en el intervalo entre el inicio y el dolor intermedio con el calor (HP 5-0,5) (p=0,009). Discusión Los umbrales de frío y de percepción de dolor con el calor, permiten detectar anormalidades en personas con la mutación TTR Val30Met, sintomáticos, incluyendo aquellos sin cambios objetivos al examen neurológico.

Increased susceptibility to development of anhedonia in rats with chronic peripheral nerve injury: Involvement of sleep deprivation?

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Controle postural, equilíbrio funcional e estabilidade do ato de locomoção na neuropatia diabética periférica

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Implementation of physiotherapeutic shares in the prevention of diabetes complications in a Family Health Strategy

Introduction In the Family Health Strategy (FHS), the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) includes education and lifestyle change strategies. Physiotherapists have a key role in this health setting. Objectives To implement actions of evaluation and guidelines for patients with type 2 DM who attend a Family Health Strategy (FHS), regarding diabetic foot and the practice of regular physical exercise in the control and prevention of the complications of Diabetes Mellitus. Methods 17 individuals from an FHS were evaluated, with the following procedures: clinical and anthropometric parameters, inspection, a questionnaire on diabetic neuropathy, tests of vibratory and tactile sensitivity, muscle function, range of motion, functional analysis, questions about exercise practice and guidance regarding controlling blood glucose and foot care. Results Deformities, dry skin, calluses, dehydration, ulceration, cracking and brittle nails were found. Peripheral neuropathy was not observed; tactile sensitivity was altered in the heel region and the vibratory sense was absent in 5% of individuals. A decrease in functionality of ankle movements was verified. Of the participants, 76% were sedentary, 24% knew about the benefits of practicing regular exercise, 25% had undergone a medical evaluation prior to performing physical exercise and, of these, 25% were supervised by a qualified professional. Discussion The implementation of physiotherapy actions in diabetics from an FHS was important for highlighting the presence of risk factors for diabetic complications. Conclusions Individuals attending the FHS need more information and programs for the prevention of diabetic complications.

Motor Neuron Disease and Acquired Axonal Neuropathy Association in HIV Infection: Case Report and Update

Background: A possible viral etiology has been documented in the genesis of motor neuron disorders and acquired peripheral neuropathies, mainly due to the vulnerability of peripheral nerves and the anterior horn to certain viruses. In recent years, several reports show association of HIV infection with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Syndrome, Motor Neuron Diseases and peripheral neuropathies. Objective: To report a case of an association between Motor Neuron Disease and Acquired Axonal neuropathy in HIV infection, and describe the findings of neurological examination, cerebrospinal fluid, neuroimaging and electrophysiology. Methods: The patient underwent neurological examination. General medical examinations were performed, including, specific neuromuscular tests, analysis of cerebrospinal fluid, muscle biopsy and imaging studies. Results and Discussion: The initial clinical presentation of our case was marked by cramps and fasciculations with posterior distal paresis and atrophy in the left arm. We found electromyography tracings with deficits in the anterior horn of the spinal cord and peripheral nerves. Dysphagia and release of primitive reflexes were also identified. At the same time, the patient was informed to be HIV positive with high viral load. He received antiretroviral therapy, with load control but with no clinical remission. Conclusion: Motor Neuron disorders and peripheral neuropathy may occur in association with HIV infection. However, a causal relationship remains uncertain. It is noteworthy that the antiretroviral regimen may be implicated in some cases.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND. The authors compared gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The primary objective was survival. Secondary objectives were time to disease progression, response rates, evaluation of toxicity, disease-related symptoms, World Health Organization performance status (PS), and quality of life (QoL). METHODS. Three hundred seventy-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with International Staging System Stage III/IV NSCLC who were ineligible for curative radiotherapy or surgery were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15) plus carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve, 5; given on Day 1) every 4 weeks (the GC arm) or MIC/MVP every 3 weeks (the MIC/MVP arm). RESULTS. There was no significant difference in median survival (248 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 236 days in the GC arm) or time to progression (225 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 218 days in the GC arm) between the 2 treatment arms. The 2-year survival rate was 11.8% in the MIC/MVP arm and 6.9% in the GC arm. The 1-year survival rate was 32.5% in the MIC/MVP arm and 33.2% in the GC arm. In the MIC/MVP arm, 33% of patients responded (4 complete responses [CRs] and 57 partial responses [PRs]) whereas in the GC arm, 30% of patients responded (3 CRs and 54 PRs). Nonhematologic toxicity was comparable for patients with Grade 3-4 symptoms, except there was more alopecia among patients in the MIC/MVP arm. GC appeared to produce more hematologic toxicity and necessitated more transfusions. There was no difference in performance status, disease-related symptoms, of QoL between patients in the two treatment arms. Fewer inpatient stays for complications were required with GC. CONCLUSIONS. The results of the current study failed to demonstrate any difference in efficacy between the newer regimen of GC and the older regimens of MIC and MVP. © 2003 American Cancer Society.

Platinum-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer : current status

Cisplatin and carboplatin are active in previously untreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with mean response rates (RRs) of 50 and 32%, respectively. In pretreated patients the RR to cisplatin/carboplatin monotherapy declines markedly to <10%. Cisplatin and carboplatin have been combined with many other cytotoxics. In first-line setting high activity has been observed in combination with taxanes or vinorelbine (RRs consistently ∼60%). It appears that these newer combinations are superior to older regimens with etoposide (RRs 30 to 50%) or 5-fluorouracil (RRs 40 to 60%). Cisplatin-/carboplatin-based regimens with infusional 5-FU and epirubicin/paclitaxel/vinorelbine achieve high RRs of around 60 to 80%. However these regimens are difficult to administer in all patients because they require central venous access for continuous 5-FU infusion. In pretreated MBC the combinations of cisplatin-taxane/vinorelbine/gemcitabine or carboplatin-docetaxel/vinorelbine yield RRs of 40 to 50%, which are higher than those achieved with platinum-etoposide/5-FU. In locally advanced disease cisplatin-based regimens achieve very high RRs (>80%). This would suggest that in chemotherapy-naïve patients platinum-based therapy might have an important role to play. Additionally the synergy demonstrated between platinum compounds, taxanes and herceptin, in preclinical and clinical studies is of immense importance and the results of the two ongoing Breast Cancer International Research Group randomized phase III studies are eagerly awaited. These studies may help clarify the role of platinum compounds in the treatment of metastatic and possibly early breast cancer. © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2 : prognostic factors and treatment selection based on two large randomized clinical trials

Purpose: Data from two randomized phase III trials were analyzed to evaluate prognostic factors and treatment selection in the first-line management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with performance status (PS) 2. Patients and Methods: Patients randomized to combination chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) in one trial and single-agent therapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in the second were included in these analyses. Both studies had identical eligibility criteria and were conducted simultaneously. Comparison of efficacy and safety was performed between the two cohorts. A regression analysis identified prognostic factors and subgroups of patients that may benefit from combination or single-agent therapy. Results: Two hundred one patients were treated with combination and 190 with single-agent therapy. Objective responses were 37 and 15%, respectively. Median time to progression was 4.6 months in the combination arm and 3.5 months in the single-agent arm (p < 0.001). Median survival imes were 8.0 and 6.6 months, and 1-year survival rates were 31 and 26%, respectively. Albumin <3.5 g, extrathoracic metastases, lactate dehydrogenase ≥200 IU, and 2 comorbid conditions predicted outcome. Patients with 0-2 risk factors had similar outcomes independent of treatment, whereas patients with 3-4 factors had a nonsignificant improvement in median survival with combination chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results show that PS2 non-small cell lung cancer patients are a heterogeneous group who have significantly different outcomes. Patients treated with first-line combination chemotherapy had a higher response and longer time to progression, whereas overall survival did not appear significantly different. A prognostic model may be helpful in selecting PS 2 patients for either treatment strategy. © 2009 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Prevalence of active foot disease and foot disease risk factors in a subacute inpatient rehabilitation facility: a cross-sectional prevalence study

Background Australian subacute inpatient rehabilitation facilities face significant challenges from the ageing population and the increasing burden of chronic disease. Foot disease complications are a negative consequence of many chronic diseases. With the rapid expansion of subacute rehabilitation inpatient services, it seems imperative to investigate the prevalence of foot disease and foot disease risk factors in this population. The primary aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the prevalence of active foot disease and foot disease risk factors in a subacute inpatient rehabilitation facility. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted at least overnight into a large Australian subacute inpatient rehabilitation facility over two different four week periods. Consenting participants underwent a short non-invasive foot examination by a podiatrist utilising the validated Queensland Health High Risk Foot Form to collect data on age, sex, medical co-morbidity history, foot disease risk factor history and clinically diagnosed foot disease complications and foot disease risk factors. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the prevalence of clinically diagnosed foot disease complications, foot disease risk factors and groups of foot disease risk factors. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate any associations between defined explanatory variables and appropriate foot disease outcome variables. Results Overall, 85 (88%) of 97 people admitted to the facility during the study periods consented; mean age 80 (±9) years and 71% were female. The prevalence (95% confidence interval) of participants with active foot disease was 11.8% (6.3 – 20.5), 32.9% (23.9 – 43.5) had multiple foot disease risk factors, and overall, 56.5% (45.9 – 66.5) had at least one foot disease risk factor. A self-reported history of peripheral neuropathy diagnosis was independently associated with having multiple foot disease risk factors (OR 13.504, p = 0.001). Conclusion This study highlights the potential significance of the burden of foot disease in subacute inpatient rehabilitation facilities. One in eight subacute inpatients were admitted with active foot disease and one in two with at least one foot disease risk factor in this study. It is recommended that further multi-site studies and management guidelines are required to address the foot disease burden in subacute inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Keywords: Subacute; Inpatient; Foot; Complication; Prevalence

The Queensland high risk foot form (QHRFF): Is it a reliable and valid clinical research tool for foot disease?

Background Foot disease complications, such as foot ulcers and infection, contribute to considerable morbidity and mortality. These complications are typically precipitated by “high-risk factors”, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. High-risk factors are more prevalent in specific “at risk” populations such as diabetes, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. To the best of the authors’ knowledge a tool capturing multiple high-risk factors and foot disease complications in multiple at risk populations has yet to be tested. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool. Methods The study was conducted in two phases. Phase one developed a QHRFF using an existing diabetes foot disease tool, literature searches, stakeholder groups and expert panel. Phase two tested the QHRFF for validity and reliability. Four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited to test validity and reliability. Three cohorts of patients were recruited; one tested criterion measure reliability (n = 32), another tested criterion validity and inter-rater reliability (n = 43), and another tested intra-rater reliability (n = 19). Validity was determined using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Reliability was determined using Kappa, weighted Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics. Results A QHRFF tool containing 46 items across seven domains was developed. Criterion measure reliability of at least moderate categories of agreement (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 91% (29 of 32) tested items. Criterion validity of at least moderate categories (PPV > 0.7) was seen in 83% (60 of 72) tested items. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of at least moderate categories (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 88% (84 of 96) and 87% (20 of 23) tested items respectively. Conclusions The QHRFF had acceptable validity and reliability across the majority of items; particularly items identifying relevant co-morbidities, high-risk factors and foot disease complications. Recommendations have been made to improve or remove identified weaker items for future QHRFF versions. Overall, the QHRFF possesses suitable practicality, validity and reliability to assess and capture relevant foot disease items across multiple at risk populations.

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.

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)

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 many inpatients in our hospitals have foot complications? The foot disease in inpatients study

Background Foot complications have been found to affect large proportions of hospital in patients with diabetes. However, no studies have investigated the proportion of foot complications affecting all people in general inpatient populations. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate the point-prevalence of different foot complications in general inpatient populations, analyse differences in diabetes and non-diabetes sub-groups, and examine characteristics of people primarily admitted for a foot complication. 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. All participants underwent a physical foot examination, by trained podiatrists using validated measures, to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy (PN). Data were also collected on participants' primary reason for admission and a range of demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot complication history, self-care and footwear risk factors. Results Overall, 733 participants consented (83% of eligible participants); mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 480 (55.8%) male and 172 (23.5%) had diabetes. Foot complication prevalence included: wounds 9.0% (95% CI) (5.1-8.7), infections 3.3% (2.2-4.9), deformity 22.4% (19.5-26.7), PAD 21.0% (18.2-24.1) and PN 22.0% (19.1-25.1). Diabetes populations had significantly more foot complications than non-diabetes (p < 0.01); wounds (15.7% vs 7.0%), infections (7.1% vs 2.2%), deformity (30.5% vs 19.9%), PAD (35.1% vs 16.7%) and PN (43.3% vs 15.4%). Foot complications were the primary reason for admission in 7.4% (95% CI) (5.7-9.5) of all participants. In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis having a foot complication as the primary reason for admission was independently associated (OR (95% CI) with foot wounds (18.9 (7.3-48.7)), foot infections (6.0 (1.6-22.4)), history of amputation (4.7 (1.3-17.0) and PAD (2.9 (1.3-6.6)). Conclusions Findings of this study indicate one in every ten hospital inpatients had an active foot wound or infection. In patients with diabetes had significantly higher proportions of foot complications than non-diabetes inpatients. Remarkably one in every thirteen inpatients in this study were primarily hospitalised for a foot complication. Further research and policy is required to tackle this seemingly large inpatient foot complication burden.

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.