Increasing identification of foot at risk of complications in patients with diabetes: a quality improvement project in an urban primary health centre in India

Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of Vibrasense compared to a biothesiometer and nerve conduction study for screening diabetic peripheral neuropathy

AIMS

Peripheral neuropathy is a common microvascular complication in diabetes and a risk factor for the development of diabetic foot ulcers and amputations. Vibrasense (Ayati Devices) is a handheld, battery-operated, rapid screening device for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) that works by quantifying vibration perception threshold (VPT). In this study, we compared Vibrasense against a biothesiometer and nerve conduction study for screening DPN.

METHODS

A total of 562 subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus underwent neuropathy assessments including clinical examination, 10-g monofilament test, VPT evaluation with Vibrasense and a standard biothesiometer. Those with an average VPT ≥ 15 V with Vibrasense were noted to have DPN. A subset of these patients (N = 61) underwent nerve conduction study (NCS). Diagnostic accuracy of Vibrasense was compared against a standard biothesiometer and abnormal NCS.

RESULTS

Average VPTs measured with Vibrasense had a strong positive correlation with standard biothesiometer values (Spearman's correlation 0.891, P < 0.001). Vibrasense showed sensitivity and specificity of 87.89% and 86.81% compared to biothesiometer, and 82.14% and 78.79% compared to NCS, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Vibrasense demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for detecting peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes and can be an effective screening device in routine clinical settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials registry of India (CTRI/2022/11/047002). Registered 3 November 2022.  https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=76167 .

Burden of diabetic foot syndrome in rural community: Need for screening and health promotion

Context

Living with diabetes can be difficult since it can affect the patient in many ways. Diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) is described as a group of symptoms where neuropathy reduced blood supply and infection leads to tissue breakdown and morbidity.

Aim

This study aims to determine the prevalence of DFS and associated sociodemographic and treatment-related factors among adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a rural community.

Setting and Design

A cross-sectional study was conducted in an area under the rural health training centre of department of Community Medicine.

Methods and Material

The study was conducted to determine DFS by measuring neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease using Michigan neuropathy screening instrument, and clinical examination.

Statistical Analysis Used

The data collected was analyzed using SPSS 25.

Results

The prevalence of DFS among those with type 2 diabetes mellitus was high (51.7%). DFS was associated with advanced age (>75 years), duration of diabetes for more than 5 years and with foot ulcer. Smoking and alcohol consumption were not associated with DFS.

Conclusion

Half of those with diabetes had DFS. People with DFS were more likely to be older and living with diabetes for longer duration. This underscores the need for early identification of DFS by the primary care physicians. Further research on the role of health professionals at the primary care level in educating and screening DFS in people with diabetes are required.

Implementation research on noncommunicable disease prevention and control interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

While the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

On January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs. Any empirical and peer-reviewed studies that focused on these interventions and reported implementation outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Given the focus on this review and the heterogeneity in aims and methodologies of included studies, risk of bias assessment to understand how effect size may have been compromised by bias is not applicable. We instead commented on the distribution of research designs and discussed about stronger/weaker designs. We synthesized extracted data using descriptive statistics and following the review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252969). Of 9,683 potential studies and 7,419 unique records screened for inclusion, 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries). The number of studies published has been increasing over time. Nearly 40% of all the studies were on cervical cancer. With regards to intervention type, screening accounted for 49%, treatment for 39%, while prevention for 12% (with 80% of the latter focusing on prevention of the NCD behavior risk factors). Feasibility (38%) was the most studied implementation outcome followed by adoption (23%); few studies addressed sustainability. The implementation strategies were not specified well enough. Most studies used quantitative methods (86%). The weakest study design, preexperimental, and the strongest study design, experimental, were respectively employed in 25% and 24% of included studies. Approximately 72% of studies reported funding, with international funding being the predominant source. The majority of studies were proof of concept or pilot (88%) and targeted the micro level of health system (79%). Less than 5% of studies report using implementation research framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising.