Objectively assessed long-term wearing patterns and predictors of wearing orthopaedic footwear in people with diabetes at moderate-to-high risk of foot ulceration: a 12 months observational study

Background: Orthopaedic footwear can only be effective in preventing diabetic foot ulcers if worn by the patient. Robust data on long-term wearing time of orthopaedic footwear are not available, and needed to gain more insights into wearing patterns and associated factors (i.e. participants’ demographic, disease-related characteristics, and footwear usability). We aimed to objectively assess long-term wearing patterns and identify factors associated with wearing orthopaedic footwear in people with diabetes at moderate-to-high risk of ulceration. Methods: People diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2 with loss of protective sensation and/or peripheral artery disease and prescribed with orthopaedic footwear were included and followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was mean daily wearing time, continuously measured using a temperature sensor inside the footwear (Orthotimer®). Adherence to wearing orthopaedic footwear was calculated as percentage of wearing time of a total assumed 16 h out-of-bed daytime, where adherence < 60% was a pre-determined non-adherent threshold. Wearing time patterns were assessed by calculating participants’ wearing (in)consistency. One-way analyses of variance tested for wearing time differences between subgroups, weekdays, and weekend days. Factors potentially associated with wearing time were collected by questionnaires and medical files. Univariately associated factors were included in multivariate linear regression analysis. Results: Sixty one participants were included (mean (SD) age: 68.0 (7.4) years; females: n = 17; type 2 diabetes mellitus: n = 54). Mean (SD) overall daily wearing time was 8.3 (6.1) hours/day. A total of 40 (66%) participants were non-adherent. Participants with a consistent wearing pattern showed higher daily wearing times than participants with an inconsistent pattern. Mean (SD) wearing times were 12.7 (4.3) vs 3.6 (4.8) hours/day, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean (SD) wearing time was significantly higher (P < 0.010) during weekdays (8.7 (6.0) hours/day) compared to Saturday (8.0 (6.1) hours/day) and Sunday (6.9 (6.2) hours/day). In the multivariate model (R2 = 0.28), “satisfaction with my wear of orthopaedic footwear” was positively associated (P < 0.001) with wearing time. The other seven multivariate model factors (four demographic variables and three footwear usability variables) were not associated with wearing time. Conclusions: Only one out of three people at moderate to high risk of foot ulceration were sufficiently adherent to wearing their orthopaedic footwear. Changing people’s wearing behaviour to a more stable pattern seems a potential avenue to improve long-term adherence to wearing orthopaedic footwear. Investigated factors are not associated with daily wearing time. Based on these factors the daily wearing time cannot be estimated in daily practice. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register NL7710. Registered: 6 May 2019

Binary systems and their nuclear explosions

Peer ReviewedPreprin

Local and systemic therapy of recurrent ependymoma in children and adolescents: short- and long-term result of the E-HIT-REZ 2005 study

BACKGROUND: Survival in recurrent ependymomas in children and adolescents mainly depends on the extent of resection. Studies on repeated radiotherapy and chemotherapy at relapse have shown conflicting results. METHODS: Using data from the German multi-center E-HIT-REZ-2005 study, we examined the role of local therapy and the efficacy of chemotherapy with blockwise temozolomide (TMZ) in children and adolescents with recurrent ependymomas. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients with a median age of 6.9 years (1.25–25.4) at first recurrence and a median follow-up time of 36 months (2–115) were recruited. Gross- and near-total resection (GTR/NTR) were achieved in 34 (64.2%) patients and associated with a markedly improved 5-year overall survival (OS) of 48.7% vs. 5.3% in less than GTR/NTR. Radiotherapy showed no improvement in OS following complete resection (OS: 70 (CI: 19.9–120.1) vs. 95 (CI: 20.7–169.4) months), but an advantage was found in less than GTR/NTR (OS: 22 (CI: 12.7–31.3) vs. 7 (CI: 0–15.8) months). Following the application of TMZ, disease progression was observed in most evaluable cases (18/21). A subsequent change to oral etoposide and trofosfamide showed no improved response. PF-A EPN were most abundant in relapses (n = 27). RELA-positive EPN (n = 5) had a 5-year OS of 0%. CONCLUSION: The extent of resection is the most important predictor of survival at relapse. Focal re-irradiation is a useful approach if complete resection cannot be achieved, but no additional benefit was seen after GTR/NTR. Longer-term disease stabilization (>6 months) mediated by TMZ occurred in a small number of cases (14.3%)