Search

The following article1 is the report of an American Diabetes Association task force that summarizes the recent literature on tests and measures to identify people at risk for foot ulceration and to recommend what should be included in the comprehensive foot exam for adult patients with diabetes. Although this information would be timely and pertinent for physical therapists at any time, its content is particularly complementary to the content of PTJ's Special Issue on Diabetes. This article has been reprinted with permission of the American Diabetes Association from Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, et al. Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: a report of the Task Force of the Foot Care Interest Group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care . 2008;31:1679-1685. DOI: 10.2337/dc08-9021. Available online at: http://care.diabetesjournals.org. Copyright ©2008 American Diabetes Association. From Diabetes Care ®, Vol 31, 2008; 1679-1685. Reprinted with permission from The American Diabetes Association . Reference 1 Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, et al. Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: a report of the Task Force of the Foot Care Interest Group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:1679–1685. [OpenUrl][1][FREE Full Text][2] [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DDiabetes%2BCare%26rft.stitle%253DDiabetes%2BCare%26rft.issn%253D0149-5992%26rft.aulast%253DBoulton%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BJ.M.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D1679%26rft.epage%253D1685%26rft.atitle%253DComprehensive%2BFoot%2BExamination%2Band%2BRisk%2BAssessment%253A%2BA%2Breport%2Bof%2Bthe%2BTask%2BForce%2Bof%2Bthe%2BFoot%2BCare%2BInterest%2BGroup%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BDiabetes%2BAssociation%252C%2Bwith%2Bendorsement%2Bby%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BAssociation%2Bof%2BClinical%2BEndocrinologists%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2337%252Fdc08-9021%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F18663232%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=diacare&resid=31/8/1679&atom=%2Fptjournal%2F88%2F11%2F1436.atom

It is now 10 years since the last technical review on preventative foot care was published (1), which was followed by an American Diabetes Association (ADA) position statement on preventive foot care in diabetes (2). Many studies have been published proposing a range of tests that might usefully identify patients at risk of foot ulceration, creating confusion among practitioners as to which screening tests should be adopted in clinical practice. A task force was therefore assembled by the ADA to address and concisely summarize recent literature in this area and then recommend what should be included in the comprehensive foot exam for adult patients with diabetes. The committee was cochaired by the immediate past and current chairs of the ADA Foot Care Interest Group (A.J.M.B. and D.G.A.), with other panel members representing primary care, orthopedic and vascular surgery, physical therapy, podiatric medicine and surgery, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. The lifetime risk of a person with diabetes developing a foot ulcer may be as high as 25%, whereas the annual incidence of foot ulcers is ∼2% (3–7). Up to 50% of older patients with type 2 diabetes have one or more risk factors for foot ulceration (3,6). A number of component causes, most importantly peripheral neuropathy, interact to complete the causal pathway to foot ulceration (1,3–5). A list of the principal contributory factors that might result in foot ulcer development is provided in Table 1. View this table: Table 1— Risk factors for foot ulcers The most common triad of causes that interact and ultimately result in ulceration has been identified as neuropathy, deformity, and trauma (5). As identification of those patients at risk of foot problems is the first step in preventing such complications, this report will focus on key components of the …

The purpose of this study was to determine the elution characteristics of vancomycin and tobramycin when mixed with calcium sulfate to form antibiotic beads. Calcium sulfate was combined with vancomycin and tobramycin separately to form 2 types of antibiotic beads, which were packaged and labeled separately. The packaged calcium sulfate beads with vancomycin and tobramycin were then gas sterilized. The beads were placed in phosphate-buffered saline and kept at 36 degrees C for 6 weeks. Two separate series of assays were run simultaneously for both types of beads. In one assay, a bead containing vancomycin was placed in a fresh vial of phosphate buffered saline after each assay. The same was done with beads containing tobramycin. In the second series of assays, 9 vials of phosphate buffered saline each containing 1 vancomycin bead and 9 vials of phosphate buffered saline each containing 1 tobramycin bead was arranged. The phosphate-buffered saline was then assayed at predetermined times for both the vancomycin bead series and the tobramycin bead series. The amount of vancomycin and tobramycin assayed nearly equaled the calculated amount of antibiotic per bead measured before bead construction. Also, the elution of antibiotic from the calcium sulfate was complete within 72 hours. In conclusion, the construction and gas sterilization of calcium sulfate beads containing vancomycin and tobramycin does not destroy vancomycin and tobramycin. Also, the complete elution of available vancomycin and tobramycin in calcium sulfate beads occurs within 72 hours.

Of all superficial fungal infections, onychomycosis is the most difficult to manage. Practitioners of all disciplines realize its chronic nature, difficulty in eradication, and propensity to recur. Topical treatment of onychomycosis, as opposed to oral therapies, offers a distinct advantage by allowing the patient to apply medication directly to the affected area, thus decreasing the potential for serious adverse events, such as drug toxicity and drug interactions. In the past, a multitude of topical antifungal agents were used in the treatment of onychomycosis; however, an acceptable level of scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness was lacking and this was evident by poor success rates. The development of a comparatively effective topical agent, the only one so far to gain FDA approval, has renewed interest in this form of therapy. Improved versions are being developed that may overcome the shortcomings of the first approved topical agent.

The worldwide increase in prevalence of type 2 diabetes has resulted in a parallel increase in diabetic foot ulcers--a pervasive and significant problem associated with this disease [2]. Currently, an estimated 10.3 million people have been diagnosed with diabetes, while an additional estimated 5.4 million people with diabetes remain undiagnosed, representing a sixfold increase in the incidence of diabetes over the past four decades [9]. Approximately 15% (more than 2 million individuals, based on these estimates) of all people with diabetes will develop a lower-extremity ulcer during the course of the disease [10-12]. While most of these ulcers can be treated successfully on an outpatient basis, some will persist and become infected. Ultimately, between 14% and 20% of patients with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers will require amputation of the affected limb [13-15]. Diabetic foot ulcers can result in staggering financial burdens for both the healthcare system and the patient. For example, analysis of the 1995 Medicare claims revealed that lower-extremity ulcer care accounted for $1.45 billion in Medicare costs and contributed substantially to the high cost of care for diabetics, compared with Medicare costs for the general population [5]. Therapies that promote rapid and complete healing and reduce the need for expensive surgical procedures would impact these costs substantially. Results of this analysis suggest that becaplermin may ultimately be more cost-effective for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers than other treatment modalities, despite its higher initial dollar cost. This finding may be attributed to a combination of factors. First, expenses incurred in more prolonged treatment, such as office visits and the need for additional dressings, can be avoided when healing completes in a shorter period. Second, rapid and complete ulcer healing may reduce the incidence of significant morbidities (such as amputation or infection) and premature mortality; consequently, the financial burden associated with these complications would be reduced. Finally, the value of improved quality of life in patients with healed ulcers and the reduction in financial burden for patients who return to work cannot be ignored. These promising results warrant further investigation in larger controlled clinical studies to define more clearly the cost-effectiveness of becaplermin in this patient population.

It is evident that there is excess morbidity and mortality as a consequence of foot problems in patients with diabetes mellitus. Most of the data relative to foot lesions is taken from the study of subsets of diabetic patients undergoing lower extremity amputation. Such data probably do not provide accurate information relative to the incidence and/or prevalence of diabetic foot problems. Available evidence does suggest that diabetic foot care may be inadequate and the efficacy of various diagnostic and therapeutic modalities has not been proven. Advances have been made in obtaining a better understanding of the microbiology of lower extremity infected lesions both in hospitalized patients and in those subjects being followed in the outpatient setting. Attention should be directed at developing a systematic classification of foot lesions which can be universally applied. We need to understand and relate to those risk factors contributing to the development and progression of lower extremity lesions in the diabetic patient. In evaluating the efficacy of diverse diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, well-controlled clinical investigations need to be undertaken. Attention should be focussed upon both measures of process and outcome where appropriate. Finally, there needs to be recognition that the problem of the diabetic foot lesion represents a major public health challenge.