Standards for the development and methodology of the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines

Diabetic foot disease is a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based international guidelines on diabetic foot disease is likely among the most cost-effective forms of health care expenditure, provided the guidelines are outcome focused, evidence based, and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published and updated international guidelines since 1999. The 2019 updates are based on formulating relevant clinical questions and outcomes, rigorous systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations that are specific, and unambiguous along with their transparent rationale, all using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We herein describe the development of the 2019 IWGDF guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease, which consists of six chapters, each prepared by a separate working group of international experts. These documents provide guidelines related to diabetic foot disease on prevention; offloading; peripheral artery disease; infection; wound healing interventions; and classification of diabetic foot ulcers. Based on these six chapters, the IWGDF Editorial Board also produced a set of practical guidelines. Each guideline underwent extensive review by the members of the IWGDF Editorial Board as well as independent international experts in each field. We believe that adoption and implementation of the 2019 IWGDF guidelines by health care providers, public health agencies, and policymakers will result in improved prevention and management of diabetic foot disease and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the patient and societal burden this disease causes

Technology transfer. Multi-purpose cows for milk, meat and traction in smallholder farming systems. Proceedings of a consultation

The aim of this consultation is to explore the practicality of extending technologies that enable the use of dairy cows for multiple purposes, to help develop a regional project to transfer these technologies to relevant countries in east and Central Africa. The focus of the consultation is on new technologies developed by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) to help introduce multi-purpose crossbred cows into smallholder production systems, focussing on traction in addition to milk and meat production. Topics of discussion include development of cow traction technologies, social and cultural altitudes towards adoption of cow traction, extension efforts to spread the technology, draft power use in smallholder farming systems, research on the nutrition of cows, and potential and extent of use of cows for draft work. Countries involved in the study include Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, China and India

The use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists versus sulfonylureas and the risk of lower limb amputations:a nation-wide cohort study

Background: Numerous studies have investigated the potential association of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) with an increased risk of lower limb amputations (LLAs), but have produced conflicting results. Particularly studies comparing SGLT2-Is to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) seem to find a higher LLA risk with SGLT2-I use. This raises the question whether the results are driven by a protective GLP1-RA-effect rather than a harmful SGLT2-I-effect. GLP1-RAs could promote wound healing and therefore reduce the risk of LLAs, but the associations between both drug classes and LLA remain uncertain. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate the risk of LLA and diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) with SGLT2-I use and GLP1-RA use versus sulfonylurea use. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using data from the Danish National Health Service (2013–2018). The study population (N = 74,475) consisted of type 2 diabetes patients aged 18 + who received a first ever prescription of an SGLT2-I, GLP1-RA or sulfonylurea. The date of the first prescription defined the start of follow-up. Time-varying Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) of LLA and DFU with current SGLT2-I use and GLP1-RA use versus current SU use. The models were adjusted for age, sex, socio-economic variables, comorbidities and concomitant drug use. Results: Current SGLT2-I use was not associated with a higher risk of LLA versus sulfonylureas {adjusted HR 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.70]}. Current GLP1-RA use, on the other hand, was associated with a lower risk of LLA [adjusted HR 0.57 (95%CI 0.39–0.84)] compared to sulfonylureas. The risk of DFU was similar to that with sulfonylureas with both exposures of interest. Conclusion: SGLT2-I use was not associated with a higher risk of LLA, but GLP1-RAs with a lower risk of LLA. Previous studies reporting a higher risk of LLA with SGLT2-I use compared to GLP1-RA use might have been looking at a protective GLP1-RA effect, rather than a harmful SGLT2-I effect

Blood pressure variability in individuals with and without (pre)diabetes:the Maastricht Study

Objective: The mechanisms associating (pre)diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are incompletely understood. We hypothesize that greater blood pressure variability (BPV) may underlie this association, due to its association with (incident) CVD. Therefore, we investigated the association between (pre)diabetes and very short-term to mid-term BPV, that is within-visit, 24-h and 7-day BPV. Methods: Cross-sectional data from The Maastricht Study [normal glucose metabolism (NGM), n¼1924; prediabetes, n¼511; type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), n¼975; 51% men, aged 608 years]. We determined SD for within visit BPV (n¼3244), average real variability for 24-h BPV (n¼2699) day (0900–2100 h) and night (0100–0600 h) separately, and SD for 7-day BPV (n¼2259). Differences in BPV as compared with NGM were assessed by multiple linear regressions with adjustment for potential confounders. Results: In T2DM, the average systolic/diastolic values of within-visit, 24-h and 7-day BPV were 4.8/2.6, 10.5/7.3 and 10.4/6.5 mmHg, respectively, and in prediabetes 4.9/ 2.6, 10.3/7.0 and 9.4/5.9 mmHg, respectively. T2DM was associated with greater nocturnal systolic BPV [0.42mmHg (95% confidence interval: 0.05–0.80)], and greater 7-day systolic [0.76mmHg (0.32–1.19)] and diastolic BPV [0.65mmHg (0.29–1.01)], whereas prediabetes was associated with greater within-visit systolic BPV only [0.35mmHg (0.06–0.65)], as compared with NGM. Conclusion: Both T2DM and prediabetes are associated with slightly greater very short-term to mid-term BPV, which may, according to previous literature, explain a small part of the increased CVD risk seen in (pre)diabetes. Nevertheless, these findings do not detract from the fact that very short-term to mid-term BPV is substantial and important in individuals with and without (pre)diabetes

Effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review

In patients with diabetes, foot ulceration and peripheral artery disease (PAD), it is often difficult to determine whether, when and how to revascularise the affected lower extremity. The presence of PAD is a major risk factor for non-healing and yet clinical outcomes of revascularisation are not necessarily related to technical success. The International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated systematic review on the effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD is comprised of 64 studies describing >13000 patients. Amongst 60 case series and 4 non-randomised controlled studies, we summarised clinically relevant outcomes and found them to be broadly similar between patients treated with open vs endovascular therapy. Following endovascular revascularisation, the 1 year and 2 year limb salvage rates were 80% (IQR 78-82%) and 78% (IQR 75-83%), whereas open therapy was associated with rates of 85% (IQR 80-90%) at 1 year and 87% (IQR 85-88%) at 2years, however these results were based on a varying combination of studies and cannot therefore be interpreted as cumulative. Overall, wound healing was achieved in a median of 60% of patients (IQR 50-69%) at 1 year in those treated by endovascular or surgical therapy, and the major amputation rate of endovascular vs open therapy was 2% vs 5% at 30days, 10% vs 9% at 1 year and 13% vs 9% at 2years. For both strategies, overall mortality was found to be high, with 2% (1-6%) perioperative (or 30day) mortality, rising sharply to 13% (9-23%) at 1 year, 29% (19-48%) at 2years and 47% (39-71%) at 5years. Both the angiosome concept (revascularisation directly to the area of tissue loss via its main feeding artery) or indirect revascularisation through collaterals, appear to be equally effective strategies for restoring perfusion. Overall, the available data do not allow us to recommend one method of revascularisation over the other and more studies are required to determine the best revascularisation approach in diabetic foot ulceration.Peer reviewe