Background: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) management requires input from multiple healthcare professionals, and has worse outcomes for people living in remote localities by comparison to urban areas. Remotely delivered healthcare may reduce this disparity. This overview summarizes current evidence on the effectiveness, stakeholder perceptions, and cost-effectiveness of remotely delivered healthcare for DFD. Methods: A search of 5 databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews published between January 2000 and June 2020. Eligible reviews were those evaluating remotely delivered monitoring or management of patients at risk of or with active DFD, or clinicians managing these patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: Eight reviews were eligible for inclusion, including 88 primary studies and 8509 participants, of which 36 studies involving 4357 participants evaluated remotely delivered monitoring or management of DFD. Only one review had a low risk of bias, with most reviews demonstrating limited search strategies and poor reporting of participants. Evidence on effectiveness was mixed, with meta-analyses demonstrating long-term ulcer healing and mortality were not significantly different between telehealth and standard care groups, although the lower-limb amputation rate was significantly decreased in one meta-analysis. Perceptions of telehealth by patients and clinicians were generally positive, whilst acknowledging limitations relating to access and use. Cost-effectiveness data were limited, with poor reporting preventing clear conclusions. Conclusions: Remotely delivered healthcare of DFD is well received by patients and clinicians, but its effectiveness is unclear. High quality trials are needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of remotely delivered DFD management.

Background No network meta‐analysis has considered the relative efficacy of cilostazol, home exercise therapy, supervised exercise therapy (SET), endovascular revascularization (ER), and ER plus SET (ER+SET) in improving maximum walking distance (MWD) over short‐ (<1 year), moderate‐ (1 to <2 years), and long‐term (≥2 years) follow‐up in people with intermittent claudication. Methods and Results A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials testing 1 or more of these 5 treatments according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. The primary outcome was improvement in MWD assessed by a standardized treadmill test. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and health‐related quality of life. Network meta‐analysis was performed using the gemtc R statistical package. The Cochrane collaborative tool was used to assess risk of bias. Forty‐six trials involving 4256 patients were included. At short‐term follow‐up, home exercise therapy (mean difference [MD], 89.4 m; 95% credible interval [CrI], 20.9–157.7), SET (MD, 186.8 m; 95% CrI, 136.4–237.6), and ER+SET (MD, 326.3 m; 95% CrI, 222.6–430.6), but not ER (MD, 82.5 m; 95% CrI, −2.4 to 168.2) and cilostazol (MD, 71.1 m; 95% CrI, −24.6 to 167.9), significantly improved MWD (in meters) compared with controls. At moderate‐term follow‐up, SET (MD, 201.1; 95% CrI, 89.8–318.3) and ER+SET (MD, 368.5; 95% CrI, 195.3–546.9), but not home exercise therapy (MD, 99.4; 95% CrI, −174.0 to 374.9) or ER (MD, 84.2; 95% CrI, −35.3 to 206.4), significantly improved MWD (in meters) compared to controls. At long‐term follow‐up, none of the tested treatments significantly improved MWD compared to controls. Adverse events and quality of life were reported inconsistently and could not be meta‐analyzed. Risk of bias was low, moderate, and high in 4, 24, and 18 trials respectively. Conclusions This network meta‐analysis suggested that SET and ER+SET are effective at improving MWD over the moderate term (<2 year) but not beyond this. Durable treatments for intermittent claudication are needed.

No abstract

No abstract