Treatment effects of two pharmaceutical skin care creams for xerotic feet among persons with diabetes: Rationale and design of a two-armed double blind randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: To minimize the risk of developing foot-ulcers, persons with diabetes are given the advice to daily inspect their feet and to apply skincare formulations. However, commercially available skincare products have rarely been developed and evaluated for diabetes foot care specifically. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the effects in reducing foot xerosis in persons with diabetes without foot-ulcers using two skincare creams containing different humectants (interventions) against a cream base non-humectant (comparator). Secondary outcomes are to evaluate differences on skin barrier integrity, low-molecular weight biomarkers and skin microbiota, microcirculation including transcutaneous oxygen pressure, degree of neuropathy, and HbA1c between intervention-comparator creams. Methods: Two-armed double-blind RCT, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06427889. With 80 % power, two-tailed significance of 2.5 % in each arm, 39 study persons is needed in each arm, total 78 persons, 98 including dropouts, to be able to prove a reduction of at least one category in the Xerosis Severity Scale with the intervention creams compared to the comparator. In one arm, each participant will treat one foot with one of the intervention creams (Oviderm® or Canoderm®), while the opposite foot will be treated with the comparator cream (Decubal®lipid cream), twice a day. If needed, participants are enrolled after a wash-out period of two weeks. The participants will undergo examinations at baseline, day 14 and day 28. Discussion: This RCT evaluate the potential effects of humectants in skin creams against foot xerosis in persons with diabetes.

Clinical implications of different risk factor profiles in patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis and systemic venous thromboembolism: a population-based study.

It is unknown whether the risk factor profile for mesenteric venous thrombosis (MVT) is different from systemic venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of the present population-based study was to compare acquired and inherited risk factors in MVT versus VTE. Identification of all MVT patients at Skåne University Hospital between 2000 and 2015 was performed in patient records and AuriculA (Swedish anticoagulation registry). VTE patients were retrieved from the Malmö Thrombophilia Study (MATS), including 1465 consecutive unselected VTE patients between 1998 and 2008. Patients with MVT (n = 120) were younger (p < 0.001), had higher glomerular filtration rate (p < 0.001), lower smoking rate (p < 0.001), and had less often undergone recent surgery (p = 0.025). The prevalence of solid cancer (19.2% in MVT versus 12.1% in VTE; p = 0.026) and intra-abdominal cancer (16.7% versus 2.3%; p < 0.001) were higher in MVT. The prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation without presence of cancer was lower in MVT compared to VTE (26.6% versus 38.9%; p = 0.031). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the MVT group (9.2% versus 0.6%; p < 0.001), but did not differ at long-term follow-up according to Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.73). Patients with MVT have a higher prevalence of cancer and lower prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation than those with systemic VTE. Intra-abdominal cancer should be excluded in MVT patients, and the high prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation in patients without cancer in both groups suggests that screening for thrombophilia in patients without cancer should be considered in this population for both groups.

Evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in mesenteric venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Mesenteric venous thrombosis is a rare lethal disease. The main aim of the present study was to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in mesenteric venous thrombosis patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 102 mesenteric venous thrombosis patients treated between 2004 and 2017 at a center with a conservative medical first approach. Median clinical follow-up was 4 years. RESULTS: Computed tomography showed successful recanalization of thrombosis in 71% of patients on vitamin K antagonists and 69% of patients on direct oral anticoagulants ( p = 0.88). Overall major and esophageal variceal bleeding rate was 14.7% and 2.9%, respectively. No difference in major bleeding ( p = 0.54) was found between vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants. No mesenteric venous thrombosis recurrence occurred during follow-up, and one venous thromboembolism occurred after cessation of anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists was efficient in patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis. Bleeding complications was a concern during treatment in both groups.