David G. Armstrong

Bio: David G. Armstrong is an academic researcher from University of Southern California. The author has contributed to research in topics: Diabetic foot & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 91, co-authored 598 publications receiving 37918 citations. Previous affiliations of David G. Armstrong include Keck Hospital of USC & American Diabetes Association.

Preventing Foot Ulcers in Patients With Diabetes

Abstract: ContextAmong persons diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus, the prevalence of foot ulcers is 4% to 10%, the annual population-based incidence is 1.0% to 4.1%, and the lifetime incidence may be as high as 25%. These ulcers frequently become infected, cause great morbidity, engender considerable financial costs, and are the usual first step to lower extremity amputation.ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence on the efficacy of methods advocated for preventing diabetic foot ulcers in the primary care setting.Data Sources, Study Selection, and Data ExtractionThe EBSCO, MEDLINE, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse databases were searched for articles published between January 1980 and April 2004 using database-specific keywords. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also searched, along with the Cochrane Library and relevant Web sites. We reviewed the retrieved literature for pertinent information, paying particular attention to prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials.Data SynthesisPrevention of diabetic foot ulcers begins with screening for loss of protective sensation, which is best accomplished in the primary care setting with a brief history and the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Specialist clinics may quantify neuropathy with biothesiometry, measure plantar foot pressure, and assess lower extremity vascular status with Doppler ultrasound and ankle-brachial blood pressure indices. These measurements, in conjunction with other findings from the history and physical examination, enable clinicians to stratify patients based on risk and to determine the type of intervention. Educating patients about proper foot care and periodic foot examinations are effective interventions to prevent ulceration. Other possibly effective clinical interventions include optimizing glycemic control, smoking cessation, intensive podiatric care, debridement of calluses, and certain types of prophylactic foot surgery. The value of various types of prescription footwear for ulcer prevention is not clear.ConclusionsSubstantial evidence supports screening all patients with diabetes to identify those at risk for foot ulceration. These patients might benefit from certain prophylactic interventions, including patient education, prescription footwear, intensive podiatric care, and evaluation for surgical interventions.

Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Their Recurrence

Abstract: Foot ulceration is the most common lower-extremity complication in patients with diabetes mellitus. This review considers the pathogenesis, treatment, and management of diabetic foot ulcers, including prevention of recurrence.

Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management.

Abstract: The majority of dermal wounds are colonized with aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms that originate predominantly from mucosal surfaces such as those of the oral cavity and gut. The role and significance of microorganisms in wound healing has been debated for many years. While some experts consider the microbial density to be critical in predicting wound healing and infection, others consider the types of microorganisms to be of greater importance. However, these and other factors such as microbial synergy, the host immune response, and the quality of tissue must be considered collectively in assessing the probability of infection. Debate also exists regarding the value of wound sampling, the types of wounds that should be sampled, and the sampling technique required to generate the most meaningful data. In the laboratory, consideration must be given to the relevance of culturing polymicrobial specimens, the value in identifying one or more microorganisms, and the microorganisms that should be assayed for antibiotic susceptibility. Although appropriate systemic antibiotics are essential for the treatment of deteriorating, clinically infected wounds, debate exists regarding the relevance and use of antibiotics (systemic or topical) and antiseptics (topical) in the treatment of nonhealing wounds that have no clinical signs of infection. In providing a detailed analysis of wound microbiology, together with current opinion and controversies regarding wound assessment and treatment, this review has attempted to capture and address microbiological aspects that are critical to the successful management of microorganisms in wounds.

2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections

Abstract: Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations) This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy) Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation) Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010

Abstract: D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, and new evidence is incorporated. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the Introduction. Subsequently, as with all position statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA’s Board of Directors.