Effect of a multidisciplinary team approach in patients with diabetic foot ulcers on major adverse limb events (MALEs): systematic review and meta-analysis for the development of the Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome.

The treatment of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is extremely complex, requiring a comprehensive approach that involves a variety of different healthcare professionals. Several studies have shown that a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is useful to achieve good clinical outcomes, reducing major and minor amputation and increasing the chance of healing. Despite this, the multidisciplinary approach is not always a recognized treatment strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of an MDT approach on major adverse limb events, healing, time-to-heal, all-cause mortality, and other clinical outcomes in patients with active DFUs. The present meta-analysis was performed for the purpose of developing Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot with the support of the Italian Society of Diabetology (Società Italiana di Diabetologia, SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD). The study was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. All randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with a duration of at least 26 weeks, which compared the MDT approach with any other organizational strategy in the management of patients with DFUs were considered. Animal studies were excluded. A search of Medline and Embase databases was performed up until the May 1st, 2023. Patients managed by an MDT were reported to have better outcomes in terms of healing, minor and major amputation, and survival in comparison with those managed using other approaches. No data were found on quality of life, returning-to-walking, and emergency admission. Authors concluded that the MDT may be effective in improving outcomes in patients with DFUs.

Development of the Italian clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome: design and methodological aspects.

AIMS: Diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) and its complications are a growing public health concern. The Italian Society of Diabetology (SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (AMD), in collaboration with other scientific societies, will develop the first Italian guidelines for the treatment of DFS. METHODS: The creation of SID/AMD Guidelines is based on an extended work made by 19 panelists and 12 members of the Evidence Review Team. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology has been used to decide aims, reference population, and target health professionals. Clinical questions have been created using PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) conceptual framework. The definition of questions has been performed using a two-step web-based Delphi methodology, a structured technique aimed at obtaining by repeated rounds of questionnaires a consensus opinion from a panel of experts in areas wherein evidence is scarce or conflicting, and opinion is important. RESULTS: The mean age of panelists (26.3% women) was 53.7 ± 10.6 years. The panel proposed 34 questions. A consensus was immediately reached for all the proposed questions, 32 were approved and 2 were rejected. CONCLUSIONS: The areas covered by clinical questions included diagnosis of ischemia and infection, treatment of ischemic, neuropathic, and infected ulcers, prevention of foot ulceration, organization and education issues, and surgical management. The PICO presented in this paper are designed to provide indications for healthcare professionals in charge of diabetic foot treatment and prevention, primarily based on clinical needs of people with diabetic foot syndrome and considering the existing organization of health care.

[A double blind randomised clinical trial to assess the efficacy of the treatments of the superficial pressure sores]. / Studio clinico randomizzato controllato in doppio cieco sull'efficacia dei trattamenti delle lesioni da decubito.

In spite of the progresses of knowledge and care, pressure sores continue to be a clinically relevant problem. A double blind randomised controlled trial was organised to assess the efficacy of triticum vulgaris (Fitostimoline) vs placebo in the re-epithelisation of superficial pressure sores. Patients with stage NPUAP II or superficial pressure sores, with an expected survival of more than 3 months and eligible for a follow-up up to 8 weeks were included, over a period of 2 years in 46 clinical sites. The protocol was approved by local ethical committees and informed consent was obtained before randomisation. Medications were performed by nurses if the patient was hospitalised and by nurses or properly instructed caregivers at home. Weekly follow-up controls were assumed by nurses. Out of the 294 randomised patients 270 were included in the analyses. The two groups are comparable for the main characteristics except for Norton Scale mean values, less severe in the group assigned to active treatment (10.1+/-3.7 vs 8.9+/-3.2). The mean follow-up was of 3.8 and 4.2 weeks with a mean duration of 26+/-18 and 29+/-18 days for the experimental group and controls respectively. Seventy-six patients in the treatment group and controls (58.0 and 54.7) had their lesions re-epithelized. Adjusting results for age, initial Norton and Push scores there are no differences between treated and controls (OR 0.99 95% IC 0.60-1.67). This multicentre study, sponsored by a research group of nurses, failed to support the hypothesis that triticum vulgaris, the active component of the product Fitostimoline, given on top of recommended treatment, provides a specific therapeutic advantage in terms of frequency and timing of re-epithelization in superficial pressure sores.