Growth factors and the management of the diabetic foot

Electromechanical therapy in diabetic foot ulcers patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most devastating and troublesome consequences of diabetes. The current therapies are not always effective because of the complicated aetiology and interactions of local and systemic components in DFU. However, adjunctive therapy (electromechanical therapy) has become the latest modality in recent years, although there is a lack of significant research to support its utilization as a treatment standard. The purpose of this systematic research was to review the literature on the application of electromechanical therapies in the healing of DFUs.

Methods

For this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Medline, EmBase, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar for the most current research (1990-2022) on electromechanical therapies for DFUs. We used the PICO method (where P is population, I is intervention, C is comparator/control, and O is outcome for our study) to establish research question with the terms [Electromechanical therapy OR Laser therapy OR photo therapy OR Ultrasound therapy OR Shockwave therapy] AND [diabetic foot ulcers OR diabetes] were used as search criteria. Searches were restricted to English language articles only. Whereas, Cochrane handbook of "Systematic Reviews of Interventions" with critical appraisal for medical and health sciences checklist for systematic review was used for risk of bias assessment. There were 39 publications in this study that were deemed to be acceptable. All the suitably selected studies include 1779 patients.

Results

The meta-analysis of 15 included research articles showed the overall effect was significant (P = 0.0002) thus supporting experimental groups have improvement in the DFUs healing in comparison to the control group.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed electromechanical treatments are significantly viable options for patients with DFUs. Electromechanical therapy can considerably reduce treatment ineffectiveness, accelerate healing, and minimize the time it takes for complete ulcer healing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01240-2.

Efficacy of low-level light therapy for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis based on seven Randomized control trials (RCTs) is to examine whether Low-level light therapy (LLLT) is effective at healing diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and to provide evidence-based recommendations and clinical guidelines for the future clinical treatment of DFUs.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published up to June 30, 2017, without language or data restrictions. RCTs that investigated the use of LLLT for DFU treatment were included. Standard methods of meta-analysis were performed to evaluate outcomes of LLLT on the healing of DFU.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 194 participants were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that LLLT has emerged as a potential noninvasive treatment for DFUs, as LLLT was found to effectively reduce the ulcer area [weighted mean difference (WMD) 34.18, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 19.38-48.99, P < 0.00001], improve the complete healing rate [odds ratio (OR) 6.72, 95% CI 1.99-22.64, P = 0.002]. Qualitative analysis of the included RCTs found that LLLT also played a role in the treatment of DFUs through promoting rapid granulation formation and shortening ulcer closure time, as well as alleviating foot ulcer pain. None of the treatment-related adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

LLLT was recognized as a potential method in the comprehensive treatment of DFUs. Further well designed and high-quality studies are required to confirm the role of LLLT in the management of DFUs.

Growth factors for treating diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers are a major complication of diabetes mellitus, often leading to amputation. Growth factors derived from blood platelets, endothelium, or macrophages could potentially be an important treatment for these wounds but they may also confer risks.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of growth factors for foot ulcers in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2015 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials in any setting, recruiting people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosed with a foot ulcer. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared a growth factor plus standard care (e.g., antibiotic therapy, debridement, wound dressings) versus placebo or no growth factor plus standard care, or compared different growth factors against each other. We considered lower limb amputation (minimum of one toe), complete healing of the foot ulcer, and time to complete healing of the diabetic foot ulcer as the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, we selected randomised clinical trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We subjected our analyses to both fixed-effect and random-effects model analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28 randomised clinical trials involving 2365 participants. The cause of foot ulcer (neurologic, vascular, or combined) was poorly defined in all trials. The trials were conducted in ten countries. The trials assessed 11 growth factors in 30 comparisons: platelet-derived wound healing formula, autologous growth factor, allogeneic platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor β2, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide matrix, recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (becaplermin), recombinant human epidermal growth factor, recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor, recombinant human vascular endothelial growth factor, recombinant human lactoferrin, and recombinant human acidic fibroblast growth factor. Topical intervention was the most frequent route of administration. All the trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. Pharmaceutical industry sponsored 50% of the trials.Any growth factor compared with placebo or no growth factor increased the number of participants with complete wound healing (345/657 (52.51%) versus 167/482 (34.64%); RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.73; I(2) = 51%, 12 trials; low quality evidence). The result is mainly based on platelet-derived wound healing formula (36/56 (64.28%) versus 7/27 (25.92%); RR 2.45, 95% 1.27 to 4.74; I(2) = 0%, two trials), and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (becaplermin) (205/428 (47.89%) versus 109/335 (32.53%); RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.76, I(2)= 74%, five trials).In terms of lower limb amputation (minimum of one toe), there was no clear evidence of a difference between any growth factor and placebo or no growth factor (19/150 (12.66%) versus 12/69 (17.39%); RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%, two trials; very low quality evidence). One trial involving 55 participants showed no clear evidence of a difference between recombinant human vascular endothelial growth factor and placebo in terms of ulcer-free days following treatment for diabetic foot ulcers (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.94; P value 0.56, low quality of evidence)Although 11 trials reported time to complete healing of the foot ulcers in people with diabetes , meta-analysis was not possible for this outcome due to the unique comparisons within each trial, failure to report data, and high number of withdrawals. Data on quality of life were not reported. Growth factors showed an increasing risk of overall adverse event rate compared with compared with placebo or no growth factor (255/498 (51.20%) versus 169/332 (50.90%); RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; I(2) = 48%; eight trials; low quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane systematic review analysed a heterogeneous group of trials that assessed 11 different growth factors for diabetic foot ulcers. We found evidence suggesting that growth factors may increase the likelihood that people will have complete healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. However, this conclusion is based on randomised clinical trials with high risk of systematic errors (bias). Assessment of the quality of the available evidence (GRADE) showed that further trials investigating the effect of growth factors are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. The safety profiles of the growth factors are unclear. Future trials should be conducted according to SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement by independent investigators and using the Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research recommendations.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases the release of neutrophil endothelial progenitor cells from the bone marrow and improves neutrophil functions, which are often impaired in people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of adjunctive G-CSF compared with placebo or no growth factor added to usual care on rates of infection, cure and wound healing in people with diabetes who have a foot infection.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 14 March 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to March Week 1 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013 March 13); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process march 13,2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 28 February 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of adding G-CSF to usual care in people with a diabetic foot infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. We reported risk ratio (RR) or, for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In the case of low or no heterogeneity we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included five eligible trials with a total of 167 patients. The investigators administered various G-CSF preparations, at different doses and for different durations of time. Adding G-CSF did not significantly affect the likelihood of resolution of infection or wound healing, but it was associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of lower extremity surgical interventions (RR 0.38; 95 % CI 0.21 to 0.70), including amputation (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.18 to 0.95). Moreover, providing G-CSF reduced the duration of hospital stay (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -2.27 to -0.53 days), but did not significantly affect the duration of systemic antibiotic therapy (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -1.30 to 0.77 days).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is limited, but suggests that adjunctive G-CSF treatment in people with a diabetic foot infection, including infected ulcers, does not appear to increase the likelihood of resolution of infection or healing of the foot ulcer. However, it does appear to reduce the need for surgical interventions, especially amputations, and the duration of hospitalisation. Clinicians might consider adding G-CSF to the usual treatment of diabetic foot infections, especially in patients with a limb-threatening infection, but it is not clear which patients might benefit.

A randomized clinical trial on the effect of low-level laser therapy on chronic diabetic foot wound healing: a preliminary report

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been shown to promote chronic wound healing in conditions of reduced microcirculation. In this preliminary study, we report the results of using LLLT to heal foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-three patients with a diabetic foot wound for at least 3 months were included in this double-blind randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized to receive placebo treatment (n = 10) or LLLT (n = 13) (685 nm, energy density 10 J/cm(2)) in addition to conventional therapy. Patients were followed for 20 weeks. Ulcer size reduction and the number of patients with complete healing were compared between the LLLT and placebo groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics of patients and foot ulcers receiving LLLT and placebo treatment. At week 4, the size of ulcers decreased significantly in the LLLT group (p = 0.04). After 20 weeks, in the LLLT group, eight patients had complete healing and in the placebo group only three patients experienced complete wound healing. The mean time of complete healing in LLLT patients (11 weeks) was less than that in placebo patients (14 weeks) though the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides evidence that LLLT can accelerate the healing process of chronic diabetic foot ulcers, and it can be presumed that LLLT may shorten the time period needed to achieve complete healing.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections

BACKGROUND

G-CSF increases the release of neutrophil endothelial progenitor cells from the bone marrow, and improves neutrophil functions, which are often impaired in people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of adjunctive G-CSF compared with placebo or no growth factor added to usual care on rates of infection, cure and wound healing in people with diabetes who have a foot infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (Searched 16/3/09); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, issue 1 2009); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to March Week 1 2009); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2009 Week 11); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March Week 2 2009); LookSmart's Find Articles (January 1990 to January 2008); conference proceedings and references lists in the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of adding G-CSF to usual care in people with a diabetic foot infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. Relative risk (RR), or for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. In the case of low or no heterogeneity studies were pooled using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included five eligible trials with a total of 167 patients. The investigators administered various G-CSF preparations, at different doses and for different durations of time. Adding G-CSF did not significantly affect the likelihood of resolution of infection or wound healing, but it was associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of lower extremity surgical interventions (RR 0.37; 95 % CI 0.20 to 0.68), including amputation (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.18 to 0.95). Moreover, providing G-CSF reduced the duration of hospital stay (MD, -1.40 days; 95 % CI, -2.27 to -0.53 days), but did not significantly affect the duration of systemic antibiotic therapy (MD, -0.27 days; 95 % CI, -1.30 to 0.77 days).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is limited, but suggests that adjunctive G-CSF treatment in people with a diabetic foot infection, including infected ulcers, does not appear to increase the likelihood of resolution of infection or healing of the foot ulcer. However, it does appear to reduce the need for surgical interventions, especially amputations, and the duration of hospitalisation. Clinicians might consider adding G-CSF to the usual treatment of diabetic foot infections, especially in patients with a limb-threatening infection, but it is not clear which patients might benefit.