A longitudinal study of foot ulceration and its risk factors in community-based patients with type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2014.07.021Get rights and content

Abstract

Aims

To determine the prevalence and associates of foot ulcer, and the subsequent incidence and predictors of first-ever hospitalisation for this complication, in well-characterised community-based patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Baseline foot ulceration was ascertained in 1296 patients (mean age 64 years, 48.6% male, median diabetes duration 4.0 years) recruited to the longitudinal Fremantle Diabetes Study between 1993 and 1996. Incident hospitalisation for foot ulceration was monitored through validated data linkage until end-December 2010.

Results

At baseline, 16 participants (1.2%) had a foot ulcer which was independently associated with intermittent claudication, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) and diabetes duration (P  0.01). The incidence of hospitalisation for this complication in those without prior/prevalent foot ulceration was 5.21 per 1000 patient-years. This rate and other published data suggest that 1 in 7–10 foot ulcers require hospitalisation. In a Cox proportional hazards model, intermittent claudication and PSN were significant independent predictors of time to admission with foot ulceration, in addition to retinopathy, cerebrovascular disease, HbA1c, alcohol consumption, renal impairment, peripheral arterial disease and pulse pressure (P  0.038).

Conclusions

These data confirm PSN as an important risk factor for foot ulceration but, in contrast to some other studies, peripheral arterial disease was also a major independent contributor. Associations between hospitalisation for foot ulcer and both retinopathy and raised pulse pressure suggest a role for local microvascular dysfunction, while alcohol may have non-neuropathic toxic effects on skin/subcutaneous structures. The multifactorial nature of foot ulceration complicating type 2 diabetes may have implications for its management.

Introduction

Foot ulcers contribute significantly to the morbidity, mortality and cost associated with diabetes [8]. Accurate estimates of the prevalence and incidence of foot ulceration complicating type 2 diabetes have, however, been difficult to obtain [22], [30]. Available data from largely primary care studies suggest that the point prevalence of an active ulcer is up to 1.8% [17], [25], with an annual incidence ranging from 1.0% to 4.1% [37]. Such estimates can, however, be influenced by how foot ulcers are defined and ascertained, as well as by racial/ethnic differences in propensity to foot ulceration [2], [26] and between-sample differences in the management of diabetes and associated foot disease that are strongly influenced by socio-economic and behavioural factors [30].

Similarly, risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers have been incompletely characterised [13], [14], [32]. In recent meta-analyses [14], [32], diagnostic tests and physical signs that detect peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) and excessive plantar pressure were consistently associated with future diabetic foot ulceration, but the role of other candidate risk factors including HbA1c and ankle brachial index (ABI) were not. Differences in methodology including design (retrospective vs prospective), sources of patients (clinic vs community), attrition rates, durations of follow-up, definitions and ascertainment of foot ulcer, standardisation of data collection, cut-points for interpretation of diagnostic tests, and availability of potential explanatory variables for multivariate assessment of independent associates, are all barriers to effective pooling of data [14], [32]. Indeed, very few individual studies have included a full range of predictive variables in their analyses [32], a deficiency that has prompted international collaboration aimed at performing a more detailed systematic review [13].

Issues with ascertainment are highlighted by the observation that a significant proportion of diabetic patients can develop foot ulcers, including those that persist for more than three weeks, which heal without healthcare system intervention [21]. This reflects patient delay in seeking help [35], [36], especially by those who do not regard an ulcer as a serious complication of diabetes [36]. Given the problems associated with complete identification of all ulcers in a longitudinal natural history study and the inconsistent findings from previous studies, the aims of the present study were to (i) determine the prevalence and associates of foot ulceration in patients with type 2 diabetes from a large representative community-based cohort detected through active screening, and (ii) identify the incidence and predictors of all foot ulceration severe enough to require hospitalisation during up to 17 years of follow-up of the same cohort.

Section snippets

Patients

The Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase I (FDS1) is a longitudinal observational cohort study of patients from a postcode-defined urban community of 120,097 people. Descriptions of recruitment, sample characteristics including classification of diabetes type and details of non-recruited patients have been published elsewhere [15]. Of 2258 diabetic patients identified from a variety of sources between April 1993 and June 1996, 1426 (63%) were recruited to FDS1 and 1296 had clinically-diagnosed type 2

Results

At baseline, the mean age of the 1296 patients was 64.0 ± 11.3 years, 48.6% were male, and they had a median [interquartile range] diabetes duration of 4.0 [1.0–9.0] years. Four participants had bilateral below-knee amputations at study entry and were excluded from further analysis. Sixteen of the remaining 1292 patients had a foot ulcer identified at FDS entry, representing an active foot ulcer prevalence of 1.2% (95% CI: 0.7–2.1%). The characteristics of the patients with foot ulcers at

Discussion

The present data, from a large, well characterised cohort with long-duration follow-up, confirm the important contribution of PSN to foot ulceration [14], [32], but also show that peripheral vascular disease is a significant independent risk factor. Neuropathy detected by the clinical MNSI score was associated with a substantial increase in risk of a prevalent foot ulcer but, in the more informative prospective arm of the study, it also predicted a more than two-fold increase in incident

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients and FDS staff for their involvement in the study, and staff at PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Fremantle Hospital for laboratory tests. The FDS was funded by the Raine Foundation University of Western Australia. MB is supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award and University of Western Australia Top-Up Award. TMED is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (Grant no. 1058260).

References (40)

  • N. Altenburg et al.

    Alcohol consumption and other psycho-social conditions as important factors in the development of diabetic foot ulcers

    Diabet Med

    (2011)
  • D.A. Antonetti et al.

    Diabetic retinopathy

    N Engl J Med

    (2012)
  • P.J. Bennett et al.

    Analysis of risk factors for neuropathic foot ulceration in diabetes mellitus

    J Am Podiatr Med Assoc

    (1996)
  • A.J. Boulton

    The diabetic foot: grand overview, epidemiology and pathogenesis

    Diabetes Metab Res Rev

    (2008)
  • E. Boyko et al.

    A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer: the Seattle diabetic foot study

    Diabetes Care

    (1999)
  • E.J. Boyko et al.

    Prediction of diabetic foot ulcer occurrence using commonly available clinical information: the Seattle diabetic foot study

    Diabetes Care

    (2006)
  • P.J. Bradshaw et al.

    Mobile Australians: a moving target for epidemiologists

    Med J Aust

    (2000)
  • F. Crawford et al.

    Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS)

    BMC Med Res Methodol

    (2013)
  • F. Crawford et al.

    Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    QJM

    (2007)
  • T.M. Davis et al.

    Cohort profile: the Fremantle Diabetes Study

    Int J Epidemiol

    (2013)
  • Cited by (19)

    • Can a combination of lifestyle and clinical characteristics explain the presence of foot ulcer in patients with diabetes?

      2019, Journal of Diabetes and its Complications
      Citation Excerpt :

      While history of DFUs or lower-extremity amputations were reported to be sufficient to identify those at high risk of developing DFU,8 the studies of patients with active DFU in large cohort (>200 participants) have been much less frequent.9–13 A previous study of patients with active DFU in Australian population have identified that the duration of diabetes, neuropathy and vascular insufficiencies are associated with DFU;9 while in a study on Asian population age and cigarette smoking were identified as characteristics of patients with DFU.10 Another study in North Europe found that age, male gender and macrovascular complications were associated factors for participants with a previous or current DFU.

    • Pie diabético. Abordaje multidisciplinar

      2015, FMC Formacion Medica Continuada en Atencion Primaria
    • Temporal changes in the prevalence and associates of foot ulceration in type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study

      2015, Journal of Diabetes and its Complications
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since FDS2 patients were significantly more likely to have all of these risk factors apart from intermittent claudication and at least one impalpable pedal pulse, we propose that improvements in foot care since FDS1, such as government-funded podiatry access and earlier referral for peripheral arterial revascularization, have attenuated the potential for foot ulcers to develop in susceptible FDS2 patients. As we reported previously (Baba et al., 2014), our baseline foot ulcer prevalence of 1.2% in FDS1 ascertained by active screening was below the 1.4%–1.8% found in other studies conducted in the 1990s (Abbott et al., 2002; de Sonnaville, Colly, Wijkel, & Heine, 1997; Kumar et al., 1994), and the present data show that the prevalence in FDS2 (1.5%) was towards the bottom of this range. The relatively low frequency in our two cohorts probably reflects the community-based nature of the FDS compared with studies involving individuals recruited from primary or secondary care attendances (Abbott et al., 2002; de Sonnaville et al., 1997; Kumar et al., 1994).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text