Improving Physical, Physiological, and Psychological Health Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers - State of the Art.

Diabetic foot disease is a complex and challenging complication of diabetes mellitus, which imposes a significant burden of disease on patients, their carers, and the wider health systems. Recurrence rates are high, and current evidence indicates a high mortality associated with it. While management algorithms have primarily focused on the physical aspects of healing, there is increasing recognition of the critical role played by psychological and biomechanical factors in the development and resolution of diabetic foot disease. Therefore, in this paper, we aim to explore how diabetic foot outcomes can be improved by addressing not only the physical but also the psychological and biomechanical aspects that are integral to the development of this condition and its optimal resolution. We explore new technologies that allow for non-invasive objective assessment of the diabetic foot at risk, and we also explore the role of understanding biomechanics, which is essential to determining risk of foot disease, but also the potential for recurrence. In addition, we discuss the evidence linking depression and cognitive impairment to diabetic foot disease and offer our insight on the research direction required before implementing novel information into front-line clinics.

Revascularisation Options for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia in Diabetes: Implications From Two Recent Trials.

Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is a severe form of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with an increased risk of amputation, mortality, and significantly impaired quality of life. International guidelines recommend considering timely revascularisation and optimal medical therapy to improve limb perfusion in individuals with CLTI. The 2 primary revascularization approaches for CLTI are open bypass surgery (BS) and endovascular therapy (EV), however, there is currently no consensus on the best initial treatment strategy for CLTI, leading to uncertainty among clinicians. To shed light on this issue, 2 recent trials, namely best endovascular versus best surgical therapy in patients with CLI (BEST-CLI) and bypass versus angioplasty for severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL-2), have tried to provide valuable insights. While a definitive conclusion on the optimal revascularisation approach is still pending, these trials offer immediate and clinically relevant information to the diabetic foot multidisciplinary team. The trials encompassed a distinct range of patient cohorts and included participants with varying degrees of medical and physical frailty. Taken together, their findings, highlight the need for an individualised revascularisation strategy which accounts for underlying comorbidities, risk factors, disease severity, availability of suitable bypass conduits, surgical risks, and timely access to procedures. Regardless of the chosen strategy, early referral of patients with diabetes and CLTI to a specialist team within a multidisciplinary environment is crucial. Comprehensive care should encompass essential elements such as adequate debridement, infection control, offloading, glycaemic control, smoking cessation, and patient education. By addressing these aspects, healthcare providers can optimise the management and outcomes for individuals with CLTI and diabetes.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Antibiotic Loaded Injectable Bio-Composite Material in Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis and Charcot Foot Reconstruction.

The management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is extremely challenging with high amputation rates reported alongside a five-year mortality risk of more than fifty percent. We describe our experience in using adjuvant antibiotic-loaded bio-composite material (Cerament) in the surgical management of DFO and infected Charcot foot reconstruction. We undertook a retrospective evaluation of 53 consecutive patients (54 feet) who underwent Gentamicin or Vancomycin-loaded Cerament application during surgery. The feet were categorised into two groups: Group 1, with infected ulcer and DFO, managed with radical debridement only (n = 17), and Group 2, requiring reconstruction surgery for infected and deformed Charcot foot. Group 2 was further subdivided into 2a, with feet previously cleared of infection and undergoing a single-stage reconstruction (n = 19), and 2b, with feet having an active infection managed with a two-stage reconstruction (n = 18). The mean age was 56 years (27-83) and 59% (31/53) were males. The mean BMI was 30.2 kg/m2 (20.8-45.5). Foot ulcers were present in 69% (37/54) feet. At a mean follow-up of 30 months (12-98), there were two patients lost to follow up and the mortality rate was 11% (n = 5). The mean duration of post-operative systemic antibiotic administration was 20 days (4-42). Thirteen out of fifteen feet (87%) in group 1 achieved complete eradication of infection. There was a 100% primary ulcer resolution, 100% limb salvage and 76% bony union rate within Group 2. However, five patients, all in group 2, required reoperations due to problems with bone union. The use of antibiotic-loaded Cerament resulted in a high proportion of patients achieving infection clearance, functional limb salvage and decrease in the duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy. Larger, preferably randomised, studies are required to further validate these observations.

People With Type 1 Diabetes of African Caribbean Ethnicity Are at Increased Risk of Developing Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on the effect of ethnicity on the development of referable sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) in people with type 1 diabetes. This study describes the risk factors for STDR in a diverse cohort of people with type 1 diabetes attending a regional diabetes eye screening service. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinical and digital retinal imaging data from 1,876 people with type 1 diabetes (50% women, 72.1% Caucasian, 17.3% African Caribbean, 2.9% Asian, and 7.6% other) with no retinopathy at baseline, attending surveillance eye screening were reviewed. Referable STDR was defined as the presence of any moderate to severe nonproliferative or preproliferative diabetic retinopathy or proliferative diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy in either eye as per U.K. National Diabetic Eye Screening criteria. Median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) age of the cohort was 29 (21, 41) years. Of the cohort of 1,876 people, 359 (19%) developed STDR. People who developed STDR had higher baseline HbA1c, raised systolic blood pressure (SBP), longer diabetes duration, and were more often of African Caribbean origin (24% vs. 15.6%; P < 0.05 for all). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, African Caribbean ethnicity (hazard ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.78, P = 0.009), baseline SBP (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.033), and baseline HbA1c (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.0001) emerged as independent risk factors for STDR. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that people with type 1 diabetes of African Caribbean ethnicity are at significantly greater risk of STDR. Further research is required to understand the mechanisms that explain this novel observation.

Onset of an Active Charcot Foot in a Person with Longstanding Type 1 Diabetes and Normal Vibration Perception Threshold-A Case Report.

Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CNO), or Charcot foot, is a disabling complication of diabetes, which is poorly understood and frequently overlooked. We describe an atypical presentation of an active Charcot foot in a woman with a long-standing type 1 diabetes who did not exhibit loss of protective sensation (sensate to a 10-gram monofilament) or loss of vibration sensation. These standard measures of large nerve fibre function ruled out "classical" neuropathy. However, additional testing showed reduced sweat gland function most likely related to degeneration of c-fibres (small fibre neuropathy). This case raises the awareness that in addition to the "textbook" description, in diabetes, Charcot foot can develop in individuals with "minimal" or "no signs" of clinical neuropathy. The onset of active Charcot foot should be suspected in every person with diabetes and history of trauma even when foot and ankle x-rays are normal. Offloading should be initiated until the diagnosis is proven otherwise.

Multimodal testing reveals subclinical neurovascular dysfunction in prediabetes, challenging the diagnostic threshold of diabetes.

AIM: To explore if novel non-invasive diagnostic technologies identify early small nerve fibre and retinal neurovascular pathology in prediabetes. METHODS: Participants with normoglycaemia, prediabetes or type 2 diabetes underwent an exploratory cross-sectional analysis with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A), handheld electroretinography (ERG), corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) and evaluation of electrochemical skin conductance (ESC). RESULTS: Seventy-five participants with normoglycaemia (n = 20), prediabetes (n = 29) and type 2 diabetes (n = 26) were studied. Compared with normoglycaemia, mean peak ERG amplitudes of retinal responses at low (16-Td·s: 4.05 µV, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.96-7.13) and high (32-Td·s: 5·20 µV, 95% CI 1.54-8.86) retinal illuminance were lower in prediabetes, as were OCT-A parafoveal vessel densities in superficial (0.051 pixels/mm2 , 95% CI 0.005-0.095) and deep (0.048 pixels/mm2 , 95% CI 0.003-0.093) retinal layers. There were no differences in CCM or ESC measurements between these two groups. Correlations between HbA1c and peak ERG amplitude at 32-Td·s (r = -0.256, p = 0.028), implicit time at 32-Td·s (r = 0.422, p < 0.001) and 16-Td·s (r = 0.327, p = 0.005), OCT parafoveal vessel density in the superficial (r = -0.238, p = 0.049) and deep (r = -0.3, p = 0.017) retinal layers, corneal nerve fibre length (CNFL) (r = -0.293, p = 0.017), and ESC-hands (r = -0.244, p = 0.035) were observed. HOMA-IR was a predictor of CNFD (ß = -0.94, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.21, p = 0.012) and CNBD (ß = -5.02, 95% CI -10.01 to -0.05, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The glucose threshold for the diagnosis of diabetes is based on emergent retinopathy on fundus examination. We show that both abnormal retinal neurovascular structure (OCT-A) and function (ERG) may precede retinopathy in prediabetes, which require confirmation in larger, adequately powered studies.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. DESIGN: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. SETTING: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. RESULTS: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)]. LIMITATIONS: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. FUTURE WORK: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly in the UK and is predicted to rise to over 5 million by 2025. Diabetes causes nerve damage that can lead to severe painful symptoms in the feet, legs and hands. One-quarter of all people with diabetes experience these symptoms, known as 'painful diabetic neuropathy'. Current individual medications provide only partial benefit, and in only around half of patients. The individual drugs, and their combinations, have not been compared directly against each other to see which is best. We conducted a study to see which treatment pathway would be best for patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The study included three treatment pathways using combinations of amitriptyline, duloxetine and pregabalin. Patients received all three treatment pathways (i.e. amitriptyline treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks, duloxetine treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks and pregabalin treatment for 6 weeks and amitriptyline added if needed for a further 10 weeks); however, the order of the treatment pathways was decided at random. We compared the level of pain that participants experienced in each treatment pathway to see which worked best. On average, people said that their pain was similar after each of the three treatments and their combinations. However, two treatments in combination helped some patients with additional pain relief if they only partially responded to one. People also reported improved quality of life and sleep with the treatments, but these were similar for all the treatments. In the health economic analysis, the value for money and quality of life were similar for each pathway, and this resulted in uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness conclusions, with no one pathway being more cost-effective than the others. The treatments had different side effects, however; pregabalin appeared to make more people feel dizzy, duloxetine made more people nauseous and amitriptyline resulted in more people having a dry mouth. The pregabalin supplemented by amitriptyline pathway had the smallest number of treatment discontinuations due to side effects and may be the safest for patients.

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP. METHODS: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Resource use within a multidisciplinary foot team clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The establishment of multidisciplinary foot team clinics reduces the risk of amputation, but little is known about its resource requirement. This study evaluates the service's resource use for first visit attendees to an established multidisciplinary foot team clinic. METHOD: A retrospective evaluation was performed for new referrals to the clinic over six months, including demographics, resource use and clinical outcome. Data were extracted electronically with retrospective review of electronic clinical notes. RESULTS: A total of 240 first visit attendees were analysed. Mean age was 64±15years, 63% were male, 72% had type 2 diabetes, 16% had type 1 diabetes, 15% had a previous amputation, and 40% had a previous ulceration. Common presentations were ulcers (62%), osteomyelitis (11%), Charcot foot (19%), foot ischaemia (17%), post-surgical wounds (13%), and osteomyelitis (11%). At first attendance, 79% of patients required specialist services including diabetologist (45%), joint vascular review (23%), joint orthopaedics services (8%), dermatologist (2%), and orthotics services (1%). A total of 4% of patients had complex debridement, 0.4% total nail excision, 0.8% pus drainage, 3% cast-related procedures, and 1% vacuum-assisted dressing. Of the patients, 4% were admitted to hospital, 38% had vascular duplex investigations, 7% had a deep vein thrombosis scan, 16% had magnetic resonance imagine (MRI), and 5% had a bone scan. CONCLUSION: A functional multidisciplinary foot team clinic requires significant resources-both clinical and administrative-for prompt investigations and revascularisation to sustain low amputation rates. Regular appraisal of resource use helps with clinic and pathway planning.

What is the impact of microvascular complications of diabetes on severe COVID-19?

Evidence suggests severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infection is characterised by pulmonary and systemic microvasculature dysfunction, specifically, acute endothelial injury, hypercoagulation and increased capillary permeability. Diabetes, which is also characterised by vascular injury in itself, confers an increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. It has been suggested that pre-existing endothelial dysfunction and microvascular disease in diabetes will exacerbate the vascular insults associated with COVID-19 and thus lead to increased severity of COVID-19 infection. In this article, we evaluate the current evidence exploring the impact of microvascular complications, in the form of diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy, in individuals with COVID-19 and diabetes. Future insights gained from exploring the microvascular injury patterns and clinical outcomes may come to influence care delivery algorithms for either of these conditions.

Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy.

PURPOSE: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) are severe complications of diabetes mellitus (DM). Both DFU and CAN are associated with increased risk of major cardiovascular events and mortality. Because of the clinical impact of both these conditions, it is important to establish what effect the presence of CAN has on DFU outcomes. METHODS: This is a narrative review of original research articles identified through an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases until June 2021 exploring CAN in individuals with DFUs. We explored prevalence, patient outcomes (DFU healing and amputation), and mortality. FINDINGS: Evidence suggests that the prevalence of CAN is high, ranging from 43% to 66% among those with DFUs. The presence of CAN may also increase the odds of developing DFUs. A single-center, prospective, observational study has suggested that the presence of CAN significantly reduces DFU healing time. The impact on amputation is indeterminate, with conflicting reports from studies reporting either no or increased risk. On the basis of limited evidence, CAN may be associated with increased mortality in individuals with DFUs. IMPLICATIONS: The interplay between CAN and DFUs is poorly understood from current literature. Given the high prevalence of CAN in individuals with DFUs and the potential for suboptimal outcomes, further high-quality studies are required to determine future management approaches when both conditions coexist and to establish whether early CAN screening in individuals with diabetes at high risk of foot ulceration may ultimately improve their outlook.

Outcomes after Emergency Admission with a Diabetic Foot Attack Indicate a High Rate of Healing and Limb Salvage But Increased Mortality: 18-Month Follow-up Study.

AIM: The diabetic foot attack (DFA) is perhaps the most devastating form of diabetic foot infection, presenting with rapidly progressive skin and tissue necrosis, threatening both limb and life. However, clinical outcome data in this specific group of patients are not available. METHODS: Analysis of 106 consecutive patients who underwent emergency hospitalisation for DFA (TEXAS Grade 3B or 3D and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Class 4 criteria). Outcomes evaluated were: 1) Healing 2) major amputation 3) death 4) not healed. The first outcome reached in one of these four categories over the follow-up period (18.4±3.6 months) was considered. We also estimated amputation free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 57.5% (n=61) healed, 5.6% (n=6) underwent major amputation, 23.5% (n=25) died without healing and 13.2% (n=14) were alive without healing. Predictive factors associated with outcomes were: Healing (age<60, p=0.0017; no Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) p= 0.002; not on dialysis p=0.006); major amputation (CRP>100 mg/L, p=0.001; gram+ve organisms, p=0.0013; dialysis, p= 0.001), and for death (age>60, p= 0.0001; gram+ve organisms p=0.004; presence of PAD, p=0.0032; CRP, p=0.034). The major amputation free survival was 71% during the first 12 months from admission, however it had reduced to 55.4% by the end of the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In a unique population of hospitalised individuals with DFA, we report excellent healing and limb salvage rates using a dedicated protocol in a multidisciplinary setting. An additional novel finding was the concerning observation that such an admission was associated with high 18-month mortality, almost all of which was after discharge from hospital.

Small Fiber Neuropathy in Diabetes Polyneuropathy: Is It Time to Change?

Diabetes polyneuropathy is an important complication of diabetes polyneuropathy, and its notable sequelae of foot ulceration, autonomic dysfunction, and neuropathic pain are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the major impact on quality of life and health economic costs, it remains underdiagnosed until late in its natural history, and there is lack of any intervention that can reverse its clinical progress. Assessment of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) in diabetes offers an opportunity to detect abnormalities at an early stage so that both interventional studies and preventative measures can be enacted to prevent progression to the devastating complications of foot ulceration and cardiac dysautonomic death. Over the last two decades, significant advances have been made in understanding the pathophysiology of diabetes neuropathy and its assessment. In this review, we discuss limitations of the screening methods recommended in current clinical guidelines which are based on large nerve fiber assessments. Thereafter, we discuss in detail the various methods currently available to assess small fiber structure and function and examine their individual strength and limitations. Finally, we discuss the reasons why despite the considerable body of evidence available, legislators and global experts have yet to incorporate the assessment of SFN as routine clinical surveillance in diabetes management. We hope that these insights will stimulate further discussion and be instrumental in the early adoption of these methods so as to reduce the burden of complications arising due to diabetes polyneuropathy.

COVID-19 Toes and Other Skin Lesions During the Pandemic: Emerging Entities?

There is accumulating evidence to indicate an association between coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) and clusters of incident cutaneous eruptions. Of these, chilblains-like perniosis have received widespread medical and media attention. These typically affect the toes, and have been called "COVID-toes." Other acral lesions such as large bullae have also been reported. However, a definitive causal relationship with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has not yet been definitively proven, nor has a pathogenic mechanism been established. These episodes are self-limiting, but we need to know whether long-term sequelae exist.

People living with diabetes are unaware of their foot risk status or why they are referred to a multidisciplinary foot team.

AIM: People with active diabetic foot disease should be rapidly referred by health professionals along a pathway of care to a multidisciplinary foot team. The aim was to investigate patients' self-reported understanding of their foot risk status and reasons for their referral to a multidisciplinary foot team. METHOD: This seven-month service evaluation included consecutive newly referred patients. Participants completed a questionnaire which asked firstly about their understanding of their foot risk status, secondly about their pathway of care before presentation to the multidisciplinary foot team, and thirdly about their interest in diabetes-related foot education and preferred learning style. RESULTS: There were 202 participants; 65% were male, mean age was 64±15 years (mean±standard deviation (SD)), 86% had type 2 diabetes, and mean HbA1c was 65±23mmol/mol (8.3±3.7%). Only 4% of participants knew their current foot risk status and 52% did not know why their care had been escalated to a multidisciplinary foot clinic. Participants with type 2 diabetes more readily expressed an interest in further foot education compared with participants with type 1 diabetes, (70% versus 29%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that people with diabetes and foot disease are less aware of their foot risk status or why they are referred to a multidisciplinary team. Participants indicated a variable interest in further learning about foot complications. These findings indicate possible communication and educational barriers between patients and health professionals which may contribute to delayed presentation or suboptimal engagement.

Could Exogenous Insulin Ameliorate the Metabolic Dysfunction Induced by Glucocorticoids and COVID-19?

The finding that high-dose dexamethasone improves survival in those requiring critical care due to COVID-19 will mean much greater usage of glucocorticoids in the subsequent waves of coronavirus infection. Furthermore, the consistent finding of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in individuals with obesity, hypertension and diabetes has focussed attention on the metabolic dysfunction that may arise with critical illness. The SARS coronavirus itself may promote relative insulin deficiency, ketogenesis and hyperglycaemia in susceptible individuals. In conjunction with prolonged critical care, these components will promote a catabolic state. Insulin infusion is the mainstay of therapy for treatment of hyperglycaemia in acute illness but what is the effect of insulin on the admixture of glucocorticoids and COVID-19? This article reviews the evidence for the effect of insulin on clinical outcomes and intermediary metabolism in critical illness.

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy and Depression: Dancing with Wolves? - Mini-Review and Commentary on Alghafri et al. "Screening for depressive symptoms amongst patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy".

The co-existence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and depression in subjects with diabetes is being increasingly recognized. The interaction of these two serious comorbidities may increase morbidity and mortality. An emerging thought is that persisting depression, along with stroke and cognitive dysfunction, may represent a cluster of potential microvascular injuries affecting the brain, which shares a common risk factor with DPN. Current evidence highlights metabolic and clinical covariates, which may interact in subjects with DPN and depression. However, there is a lack of rigorous enquiry into the confounding effect of cognitive dysfunction and vascular brain disease. Furthermore, high-quality longitudinal studies exploring the direct impact of these comorbidities on diabetes course and on the progression of the comorbidities themselves are lacking. Improved insights into comorbid DPN and depression may help to improve screening for and treatment of both these conditions.

The current burden of diabetic foot disease.

Neuropathy and ischaemia are two great pathologies of the diabetic foot which lead to the characteristic features of foot ulceration (neuropathic and ischaemic) and Charcot neuroarthropathy. These can be complicated by infection and eventually may result in amputation (minor or major) and increased mortality. All of these features contribute to considerable clinical and economic burden. Peripheral nerves in the lower limbs are susceptible to different types of damage in patients with diabetes leading to distinctive syndromes. These include symmetrical sensory neuropathy associated with autonomic neuropathy, which advances gradually, and acutely painful neuropathies and mononeuropathies which have a rather acute presentation but usually recover. Ischaemia in the form of peripheral arterial disease is an important contributor to the burden of the diabetic foot. The incidence of atherosclerotic disease is raised in patients with diabetes and its natural history is accelerated. Diabetes causes severe and diffuse disease below-the knee. The lifetime risk of developing a diabetic foot ulcer is between 19% and 34%. Recurrence is common after initial healing; approximately 40% of patients have a recurrence within 1 year after ulcer healing, almost 60% within 3 years, and 65% within 5 years. Charcot neuroarthropathy is characterised by bone and joint destruction on the background of a neuropathy. Its prevalence in diabetes varies from 0.1% to 8%. Infection develops in 50%-60% of ulcers and is the principal pathology that damages diabetic feet. Approximately 20% of moderate or severe diabetic foot infections result in lower extremity amputations. The incidence of osteomyelitis is about 20% of diabetic foot ulcers. Every 20 s a lower limb is amputated due to complications of diabetes. Of all the lower extremity amputations in persons with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. The mortality at 5 years for an individual with a diabetic foot ulcer is 2.5 times as high as the risk for an individual with diabetes who does not have a foot ulcer. The economic burden exacted on health care systems is considerable and includes direct and indirect costs, with loss of personal earnings and burden to carers. The diabetic foot is a significant contributor to the global burden of disability and reduces the quality of life. It remains a considerable public health problem.