Diabetic foot ulcer: an evidence-based treatment update.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are extremely debilitating and difficult to treat. Multidisciplinary management, patient education, glucose control, debridement, offloading, infection control, and adequate perfusion are the mainstays of standard care endorsed by most practice guidelines. Adjunctive therapies represent new treatment modalities endorsed in recent years, though many lack significant high-powered studies to support their use as standard of care. OBJECTIVE: This update intends to identify recent, exclusively high level, evidence-based evaluations of DFU therapies. Furthermore, it suggests a direction for future research. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Ovid Technologies, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for recent systematic reviews published after 2004, and randomized controlled trials published in 2012-2013 that evaluated treatment modalities for DFUs. These papers are reviewed and the quality of available evidence is discussed. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Studied therapies include debridement, off-loading, negative pressure therapy, dressings, topical therapies, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, growth factors, bioengineered skin substitutes, electrophysical therapy, and alternative therapy. Good-quality evidence is lacking to justify the use of many of these therapies, with the exception of standard care (offloading, debridement) and possibly negative pressure wound therapy. LIMITATIONS: There is an overall lack of high-level evidence in new adjunctive management of DFU. Comparison of different treatment modalities is difficult, since existing studies are not standardized. CONCLUSIONS: Many therapeutic modalities are available to treat DFU. Quality high-level evidence exists for standard care such as off-loading. Evidence for adjunctive therapies such as negative pressure wound therapy, skin substitutes, and platelet-derived growth factor can help guide adjunctive care but limitations exist in terms of evidence quality.

US-National Institutes of Health-funded research for cutaneous wounds in 2012.

Chronic cutaneous wounds are a major burden on patients, healthcare providers, and the US healthcare system. This study, carried out in part by the Wound Healing Society's Government Regulatory Committee, aimed to evaluate the current state of National Institutes of Health funding of cutaneous wound healing-related research projects. National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures & Results system was used to identify wound healing projects funded by the National Institutes of Health in the 2012 fiscal year. Research projects focusing on cutaneous wound prevention/education, mechanisms, complications, treatment, or imaging/monitoring were included in the analysis. Ninety-one projects were identified, totaling a collective funding of $29,798,991 and median funding of $308,941. Thirteen institutes/centers from the National Institutes of Health were responsible for awarding funds; three of which (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases) accounted for 60.4% of the grant funding. The predominant funding mechanisms included R01 (48.3%), R43 (14.3%), and R21 (9.9%). New applications and pre-existing applications accounted for 39.6 and 55.0% of the awarded grants, respectively. Grants awarded to investigators affiliated with universities accounted for 68.1% of grants and 25.3% were to investigators in the private sector. This analysis of current National Institutes of Health funding may facilitate more transparency of National Institutes of Health-allocated research funds and serve as an impetus to procure additional support for the field of wound healing.