Trends in diabetes-related foot disease hospitalizations and amputations in Australia, 2010 to 2019

The experience of an adult diabetic foot unit continuing face-to-face consults during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted lower limb diabetes care. We aimed to map trends in diabetes-related lower limb amputation and hospitalisation rates through the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all individuals who underwent a lower limb amputation for a diabetes-related foot complication from 2018 to 2021 at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, a quaternary hospital in Australia. Hospitalisation rates with a diabetes-related foot complication were collected for comparison. The start of the COVID-19 epoch was defined as 16 March 2020, when a state of emergency was declared in Melbourne.

RESULTS

During the study period, 360 lower limb amputations for diabetes-related foot complications were performed in 247 individuals. The median monthly number of amputations remained stable prior to and during the COVID-19 epoch; there was a median of 8.0 amputations per month (interquartile range (IQR) = 6.5-11) before COVID-19, compared to 6.5 amputations (IQR = 5.0-8.3) during the COVID-19 epoch (P = 0.23). Hospitalisation with a diabetes-related foot complication significantly increased from a median monthly rate of 11 individuals (IQR = 9.0-14) before COVID-19 to 19 individuals (IQR = 14-22) during the COVID-19 epoch (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased hospitalisations for diabetes-related foot complications during COVID-19, there was not a corresponding increase in amputation rates. Face-to-face care of diabetes-related foot complications was prioritised at this centre and may have contributed to stable amputation rates during the pandemic.

How far has diabetes-related foot disease research progressed in Australia? A bibliometric review (1970-2023)

BACKGROUND

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian and global disease burdens and requires proportionate volumes of research to address. Bibliometric analyses are rigorous methods for exploring total research publications in a field to help identify volume trends, gaps and emerging areas of need. This bibliometric review aimed to explore the volume, authors, institutions, journals, collaborating countries, research types and funding sources of Australian publications investigating DFD over 50 years.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Scopus® database was conducted by two independent authors to identify all Australian DFD literature published between 1970 and 2023. Bibliometric meta-data were extracted from Scopus®, analyzed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface, and publication volumes, authors, institutions, journals and collaborative countries were described. Publications were also categorised for research type and funding source.

RESULTS

Overall, 332 eligible publications were included. Publication volume increased steadily over time, with largest volumes (78%) and a 7-fold increase over the last decade. Mean co-authors per publication was 5.6, mean journal impact factor was 2.9 and median citation was 9 (IQR2-24). Most frequent authors were Peter Lazzarini (14%), Vivienne Chuter (8%) and Jonathon Golledge (7%). Most frequent institutions affiliated were Queensland University Technology (33%), University Sydney (30%) and James Cook University (25%). Most frequent journals published in were Journal Foot and Ankle Research (17%), Diabetic Medicine (7%), Journal Diabetes and its Complications (4%) and International Wound Journal (4%). Most frequent collaborating countries were the United Kingdom (9%), the Netherlands (6%) and the United States (5%). Leading research types were etiology (38%), treatment evaluation (25%) and health services research (13%). Leading funding sources were no funding (60%), internal institution (16%) and industry/philanthropic/international (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Australian DFD research increased steadily until more dramatic increases were seen over the past decade. Most research received no funding and mainly investigated etiology, existing treatments or health services. Australian DFD researchers appear to be very productive, particularly in recent times, despite minimal funding indicating their resilience. However, if the field is to continue to rapidly grow and address the very large national DFD burden, much more research funding is needed in Australia, especially targeting prevention and clinical trials of new treatments in DFD.

Non-coronary arterial outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a Swedish retrospective cohort study

Background

Observational studies on long-term trends, risk factor association and importance are scarce for type 1 diabetes mellitus and peripheral arterial outcomes. We set out to investigate trends in non-coronary complications and their relationships with cardiovascular risk factors in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus compared to matched controls.

Methods

34,263 persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus from the Swedish National Diabetes Register and 164,063 matched controls were included. Incidence rates of extracranial large artery disease, aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, lower extremity artery disease, and diabetic foot syndrome were analyzed using standardized incidence rates and Cox regression.

Findings

Between 2001 and 2019, type 1 diabetes mellitus incidence rates per 100,000 person-years were as follows: extracranial large artery disease 296.5-84.3, aortic aneurysm 0-9.2, aortic dissection remained at 0, lower extremity artery disease 456.6-311.1, and diabetic foot disease 814.7-77.6. Persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus with cardiometabolic risk factors at target range did not exhibit excess risk of extracranial large artery disease [HR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.20-3.36)] or lower extremity artery disease [HR 0.94 (95% CI, 0.30-2.93)], compared to controls. Persons with type 1 diabetes with all risk factors at baseline, had substantially elevated risk for diabetic foot disease [HR 29.44 (95% CI, 3.83-226.04)], compared to persons with type 1 diabetes with no risk factors. Persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus continued to display a lower risk for aortic aneurysm, even with three cardiovascular risk factors at baseline [HR 0.31 (95% CI, 0.15-0.67)]. Relative importance analyses demonstrated that education, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), duration of diabetes and lipids explained 54% of extracranial large artery disease, while HbA1c, smoking and systolic blood pressure explained 50% of lower extremity artery disease and HbA1c alone contributed to 41% of diabetic foot disease. Income, duration of diabetes and body mass index explained 66% of the contribution to aortic aneurysm.

Interpretation

Peripheral arterial complications decreased in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus, except for aortic aneurysm which remained low. Besides glycemic control, traditional cardiovascular risk factors were associated with incident outcomes. Risk of these outcomes increased with additional risk factors present. Persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus exhibited a lower risk of aortic aneurysm compared to controls, despite presence of cardiovascular risk factors.

Funding

Swedish Governmental and the county support of research and education of doctors, the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, Sweden and Åke-Wibergs grant.

Effectiveness of offloading interventions for people with diabetes-related foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Offloading treatment is crucial to heal diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU). This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of offloading interventions for people with DFU.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and trials registries for all studies relating to offloading interventions in people with DFU to address 14 clinical question comparisons. Outcomes included ulcers healed, plantar pressure, weight-bearing activity, adherence, new lesions, falls, infections, amputations, quality of life, costs, cost-effectiveness, balance, and sustained healing. Included controlled studies were independently assessed for risk of bias and had key data extracted. Meta-analyses were performed when outcome data from studies could be pooled. Evidence statements were developed using the GRADE approach when outcome data existed.

RESULTS

From 19,923 studies screened, 194 eligible studies were identified (47 controlled, 147 non-controlled), 35 meta-analyses performed, and 128 evidence statements developed. We found non-removable offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed compared to removable offloading devices (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.09-1.41; N = 14, n = 1083), and may increase adherence, cost-effectiveness and decrease infections, but may increase new lesions. Removable knee-high offloading devices may make little difference to ulcers healed compared to removable ankle-high offloading devices (RR 1.00, 0.86-1.16; N = 6, n = 439), but may decrease plantar pressure and adherence. Any offloading device may increase ulcers healed (RR 1.39, 0.89-2.18; N = 5, n = 235) and cost-effectiveness compared to therapeutic footwear and may decrease plantar pressure and infections. Digital flexor tenotomies with offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed (RR 2.43, 1.05-5.59; N = 1, n = 16) and sustained healing compared to devices alone, and may decrease plantar pressure and infections, but may increase new transfer lesions. Achilles tendon lengthening with offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed (RR 1.10, 0.97-1.27; N = 1, n = 64) and sustained healing compared to devices alone, but likely increase new heel ulcers.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-removable offloading devices are likely superior to all other offloading interventions to heal most plantar DFU. Digital flexor tenotomies and Achilles tendon lengthening in combination with offloading devices are likely superior for some specific plantar DFU locations. Otherwise, any offloading device is probably superior to therapeutic footwear and other non-surgical offloading interventions to heal most plantar DFU. However, all these interventions have low-to-moderate certainty of evidence supporting their outcomes and more high-quality trials are needed to improve our certainty for the effectiveness of most offloading interventions.

Inequity of healthcare access for patients with diabetic foot disease: a retrospective study in south-east Queensland

OBJECTIVES

Logan local government area (LGA) in Queensland has the highest diabetes prevalence (6.5%) within Metro South Health (MSH). The study aimed to determine the burden of, and equity of access to secondary healthcare, for diabetic foot disease (DFD) for Logan residents to better inform healthcare services planning.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of hospital admissions data between January 2018 and December 2021.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

All episodes of care for DFD provided by MSH hospitals to patients with a residential address in the three LGAs serving the region were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was number of episodes of care for DFD by LGA of residence and hospital of presentation. Secondary outcomes were DFD-related hospital occupied bed days and number of lower extremity amputations.

RESULTS

Among residents in the MSH region, almost half of all episodes of care (47%) and bed days (48%) for DFD were for patients residing in Logan LGA. 40% of episodes of care, 57% of bed days and 73% of lower extremity amputations for DFD for these patients occurred outside of Logan LGA. These findings led to the planning of an integrated model of care for DFD at Logan hospital to improve and make care available locally.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that Logan residents with DFD had poor access to care despite the highest burden. Analysing epidemiology of care for DFD with an equity lens and highlighting gaps in service delivery is paramount to addressing the inequity paradigm.

Health-related quality of life in people with different diabetes-related foot ulcer health states: A cross-sectional study of healed, non-infected, infected, hospitalised and amputated ulcer states

AIMS

Diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) are a leading cause of infection, hospitalisation and amputation. However, to our knowledge no studies have compared the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of people with DFU that were infected, hospitalised or amputated. This study aimed to investigate and compare the HRQoL of different groups of people with healed, non-infected, infected, hospitalised, or amputated DFU.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre cross-sectional study measuring the HRQoL of patients, attending one of 18 Diabetic Foot Services across Queensland, Australia, with one of five DFU health states: healed, non-infected, infected, hospitalised, amputated. HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L to estimate age-sex adjusted utility values.

RESULTS

Of 376 included patients (mean age 63 (12) years, 75% male), age-sex adjusted HRQoL utility estimates (95% CIs) were: healed DFU 0.57 (0.51-0.64), non-infected DFU 0.55 (0.49-0.62), infected DFU 0.45 (0.36-0.55), hospitalised DFU 0.53 (0.42-0.64), and amputated DFU 0.55 (0.46-0.63).

CONCLUSION

People in any DFU health state have considerably reduced HRQoL, with greatest reductions in those with infected DFU. These findings provide valuable HRQoL estimates and comparisons for several different important DFU health states, adding to our understanding of the impact of DFU on HRQoL and facilitating future economic evaluations.

Australian evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes-related foot disease: a guideline summary

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) - foot ulcers, infection, ischaemia - is a leading cause of hospitalisation, disability, and health care costs in Australia. The previous 2011 Australian guideline for DFD was outdated. We developed new Australian evidence-based guidelines for DFD by systematically adapting suitable international guidelines to the Australian context using the ADAPTE and GRADE approaches recommended by the NHMRC.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

This article summarises the most relevant of the 98 recommendations made across six new guidelines for the general medical audience, including: prevention - screening, education, self-care, footwear, and treatments to prevent DFD; classification - classifications systems for ulcers, infection, ischaemia and auditing; peripheral artery disease (PAD) - examinations and imaging for diagnosis, severity classification, and treatments; infection - examinations, cultures, imaging and inflammatory markers for diagnosis, severity classification, and treatments; offloading - pressure offloading treatments for different ulcer types and locations; and wound healing - debridement, wound dressing selection principles and wound treatments for non-healing ulcers.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE

For people without DFD, key changes include using a new risk stratification system for screening, categorising risk and managing people at increased risk of DFD. For those categorised at increased risk of DFD, more specific self-monitoring, footwear prescription, surgical treatments, and activity management practices to prevent DFD have been recommended. For people with DFD, key changes include using new ulcer, infection and PAD classification systems for assessing, documenting and communicating DFD severity. These systems also inform more specific PAD, infection, pressure offloading, and wound healing management recommendations to resolve DFD.

The Validity and Reliability of Self-Reported Adherence to Using Offloading Treatment in People with Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers

Adherence to using offloading treatment is crucial to healing diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFUs). Offloading adherence is recommended to be measured using objective monitors. However, self-reported adherence is commonly used and has unknown validity and reliability. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of self-reported adherence to using removable cast walker (RCW) offloading treatment among people with DFUs. Fifty-three participants with DFUs using RCWs were included. Each participant self-reported their percentage adherence to using their RCW of total daily steps. Participants also had adherence objectively measured using dual activity monitors. After one week, a subset of 19 participants again self-reported their percentage adherence to investigate test-retest reliability. Validity was tested using Pearson's r and Bland-Altman tests, and reliability using Cohen's kappa. Median (IQR) self-reported adherence was greater than objectively measured adherence (90% (60-100) vs. 35% (19-47), p < 0.01). There was fair agreement (r = 0.46; p < 0.01) and large 95% limits of agreement with significant proportional bias (β = 0.46, p < 0.01) for validity, and minimal agreement for test-retest reliability (K = 0.36; p < 0.01). The validity and reliability of self-reported offloading adherence in people with DFU are fair at best. People with DFU significantly overestimate their offloading adherence. Clinicians and researchers should instead use objective adherence measures.