AimThe aim of this study was to perform an up‐to‐date systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of home foot temperature monitoring, patient education and offloading footwear in reducing the incidence of diabetes‐related foot ulcers.MethodsA literature search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane databases to identify relevant original studies. Meta‐analyses were performed using intention‐to‐treat principals for worst (main analysis) and best (sub‐analysis) case scenarios. Leave‐one‐out sensitivity analyses were used to assess the consistency of findings.ResultsOf 7575 unique records, 17 RCTs involving 2729 participants were included. Four tested home foot temperature monitoring (n = 468), six examined patient education (n = 823) and seven assessed offloading footwear (n = 1438). Participants’ who performed home foot temperature monitoring [odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.84; n = 468] and those provided offloading footwear (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80; n = 1438) were less likely to develop a diabetes‐related foot ulcer. Patient education programmes did not significantly reduce diabetes‐related foot ulcer incidence (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.20; n = 823). Sensitivity analyses suggested that offloading footwear findings were consistent, but home foot temperature findings were dependent on the individual inclusion of one trial. All RCTs had either high or unclear risk of bias.ConclusionThis meta‐analysis suggests that offloading footwear is effective in reducing the incidence of diabetes‐related foot ulcers. Home foot temperature monitoring also appears beneficial but larger trials are needed (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019135226).

Background There is no drug therapy for abdominal aortic aneurysm ( AAA ). FAME‐2 (Fenofibrate in the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm 2) was a placebo‐controlled randomized trial designed to assess whether administration of 145 mg of fenofibrate/d for 24 weeks favorably modified circulating markers of AAA. Methods and Results Patients with AAA s measuring 35 to 49 mm and no contraindication were randomized to fenofibrate or identical placebo. The primary outcome measures were the differences in serum osteopontin and kallistatin concentrations between groups. Secondary analyses compared changes in the circulating concentration of AAA ‐associated proteins, and AAA growth, between groups using multivariable linear mixed‐effects modeling. A total of 140 patients were randomized to receive fenofibrate (n=70) or placebo (n=70). By the end of the study 3 (2.1%) patients were lost to follow‐up and 18 (12.9%) patients had ceased trial medication. A total of 85% of randomized patients took ≥80% of allocated tablets and were deemed to have complied with the medication regimen. Patients’ allocated fenofibrate had expected reductions in serum triglycerides and estimated glomerular filtration rate, and increases in serum homocysteine. No differences in serum osteopontin, kallistatin, or AAA growth were observed between groups. Conclusions Administering 145 mg/d of fenofibrate for 24 weeks did not significantly reduce serum concentrations of osteopontin and kallistatin concentrations, or rates of AAA growth in this trial. The findings do not support the likely benefit of fenofibrate as a treatment for patients with small AAA s. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN 12613001039774.

No abstract

Background Accurate repeat assessment of the diameter of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is important. This study investigated the reproducibility of different methods of measuring AAA diameter from ultrasound images. Methods Fifty AAA patients were assessed by ultrasound. Maximum AAA diameter was measured independently by three trained observers on two separate occasions using a standardised protocol. Five diameters were measured from each scan, three in the anterior–posterior (AP) and two in the transverse (TV) plane, including inner-to-inner (ITI), outer-to-outer (OTO) and leading edge-to-leading edge (LETLE). Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility were reported as reproducibility coefficients. Statistical comparison of methods was performed using linear mixed effects models. Results Intra-observer reproducibility coefficients (AP LETLE 2.2 mm; AP ITI 2.4 mm; AP OTO 2.6 mm) were smaller than inter-observer reproducibility coefficients (AP LETLE 4.6 mm: AP ITI 4.5; and AP OTO 4.8 mm). There was no statistically significant difference in intra-observer reproducibility of three types of measurements performed in the AP plane. Measurements obtained in the TV plane had statistically significant worse intra-observer reproducibility than those performed in the AP plane. Conclusions This study suggests that the comparison of maximum AAA diameter between repeat images is most reproducibly performed by a single trained observer measuring diameters in the AP plane.

No abstract