Search

Background: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a common, costly, and severe complication of diabetes mellitus. DFD is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and poses a significant burden on patients, healthcare systems and society. While the detrimental impact of DFD is widely recognised, the precise financial implications of its management in Australia remain unclear due to inconsistent and inconclusive contemporary data. Therefore, the aim of this review was to identify, summarise and synthesise existing evidence to estimate the costs associated with DFD management in Australia., Methods: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and the Cochrane Library from November 2011 to July 2023. Australian studies investigating costs associated with DFD management were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment steps. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) checklist was used to assess study quality. A descriptive analysis was performed due to limited existing evidence and large heterogeneity between study populations to conduct meta-analyses., Results: Three economic evaluations were included in the review. One study was rated as 'poor', one as 'very good' and one as 'excellent' when assessed against the CHEERS checklist. The estimated cost of DFD management varied between studies and comparisons were not possible due to the different methodological approaches and data sources. The studies were unable to provide an overall cost of DFD with respect to all aspects of care as they did not capture the multi-faceted level of care throughout the entire patient journey between sectors and over time., Conclusion: There is limited contemporary evidence for the costs associated with DFD management within Australia, particularly related to direct costs and resource utilisation. Further research into the economic impact of DFD management is needed to inform optimisation of national service delivery and improve health outcomes for individuals with DFD in Australia. Integrating real-world data on impact of clinical interventions with parallel economic evaluation could be a valuable approach for future research, which would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical and economic outcomes beyond solely model-based evaluations., Trial Registration: PROSPERO Registration No. CRD42022290910., (© 2023. Crown.)

There is a lack of clarity and guidance for screening peripheral artery disease (PAD) in persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage kidney disease (ESKD) despite this group being at excess risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this current study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence and risk factors for PAD in persons with CKD in Australian cohorts. We used the inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis with double arcsine transformation to summarize the prevalence of PAD (with 95% CIs). Nine studies and 18 reports from the Australia and New Zealand dialysis and transplant registry with 36 cohorts were included in the review. We found a substantially higher PAD prevalence in cohorts based on an ankle-brachial index (ABI) or toe systolic pressure (TBI) than cohorts based on self-reported history. Higher PAD prevalence was observed in ESKD persons than CKD persons without dialysis (PAD diagnosis based on ABI or TBI: 31% in ESKD persons and 23% in CKD persons, PAD diagnosis based on self-reported history: 17% in ESKD persons and 10% in CKD persons). Older age, Caucasian race, cerebrovascular disease and haemodialysis were associated with the presence of PAD in ESKD persons. Our findings indicated a considerable proportion of PAD in CKD and ESKD persons particularly in those with ESKD. To develop and provide an adequate plan to clinically manage CKD patients with PAD, evidence of cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of early detection of PAD in persons with CKD in Australia is recommended for future studies., (© 2021 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology.)

Introduction: Diabetic foot disease is a common condition globally and is over-represented in indigenous populations. The propensity for patients with diabetic foot disease to undergo minor or major limb amputation is a concern. Diabetic foot disease and lower limb amputation are debilitating for patients and have a substantial financial impact on health services. The purpose of this multicentre study is to prospectively report the presentation, management and outcomes of diabetic foot disease, to validate existing scoring systems and assess long term outcomes for these patients particularly in relation to major limb amputation., Methods and Analysis: This is a multisite, international, prospective observational study, being undertaken at Waikato Hospital, New Zealand (NZ); Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Australia. Consecutive participants with diabetic foot disease that meet inclusion criteria and agree to participate will be recruited from multidisciplinary team diabetic foot clinic, vascular clinic, dialysis and admission to hospital. Follow-up of participants will occur at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. At recruitment and follow-up reviews, information about service details, demographic and clinical history, wound data and discharge information will be recorded. The primary outcomes are the time to wound healing, major amputation, overall mortality and amputation-free survival at 12 months. This study started in NZ in August 2020 and will commence in Australian sites in early 2021., Ethics and Dissemination: New Zealand Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee (20/CEN/122), Waikato DHB Research Department (RDO020044), Quality Improvement HoD Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (39715) and the Central Adelaide Local Health Network (CALHN) Human Research Ethics Committee (13928). Results will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000337875)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The benefits of best medical therapy (BMT) for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral arterial disease are well established. Guidelines recommend prescription of BMT should consist of anti-platelet, statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocking therapy, with evidence this regimen reduces cardiovascular mortality following vascular surgery and improves vascular bypass graft patency. This multicentre study examines the BMT prescription on discharge after infrainguinal bypass (IIB) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Primary outcome measure was discharge prescription of three BMT pharmacological agents, defined for study purposes as an anti-platelet/anti-coagulant, a lipid-lowering agent, and an anti-hypertensive medication if hypertension was diagnosed., Methods: This study retrospectively examined discharge prescriptions and summaries of all patients discharged following IIB in five ANZ hospitals, between January 2015 and April 2018., Results: A total of 688 admissions for IIB were included (76.9% male; mean age 67.8 ± 12.0). A total of 72.4% of procedures were for chronic limb ischaemia, compared to acute limb ischaemia (12.6%), and aneurysmal disease (15%). The primary outcome of adherence with complete BMT prescription occurred in 66.9% of admissions. Anti-thrombotic agents were most frequently prescribed (96.4%), followed by anti-lipidaemic agents (82.1%). Of the patients with documented hypertension, 43.8% were not prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocking, while 19.2% were discharged without any anti-hypertensive medications., Conclusion: Almost one third of patients were not prescribed complete BMT following IIB. There is potential to improve the outcomes after IIB in ANZ through a focus on risk-factor control and BMT prescription., (© 2021 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Objective: There is controversy about the role of pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The aim was to understand expert opinions and the factors influencing decision making., Methods: In 2018, surgeons from Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and Europe (EUR) were contacted to participate in an online survey which comprised questions about preferences for pre-emptive TEVAR, followed by five case scenarios, and two ranking questions for anatomical and technical risk factors respectively. Case 1 was designed to favour TEVAR in a hypertensive patient with partial false lumen thrombosis and large diameter (aortic ≥ 40 mm, false lumen ≥ 22 mm). Case 2 had no risk factors mandating TEVAR, according to current evidence. Cases 3, 4, and 5 were designed to test one risk factor respectively, large entry tear on the inner aortic curvature (≥10 mm), partial false lumen thrombosis, and large diameter alone., Results: There were 75 responses, 42 from EUR and 33 from ANZ. Almost half of surgeons (49.3%) endorsed pre-emptive TEVAR with 82.3% preferring to perform TEVAR in the subacute phase. In Case 1 and 5, 58.3% and 52.8% of surgeons respectively chose TEVAR, the highest rates obtained in the survey. Cases 1 and 5 included large diameters ≥40 mm, which were ranked the highest in importance when surgeons considered anatomical risk factors. Surgeons who recommend pre-emptive TEVAR were more likely to choose TEVAR in both Case 1 (83.3% vs. 33.3%, p < .001, 95% CI 27.6%-65.8%) and Case 5 (69.4% vs. 38.2%, p = .008, 95% CI 8.2%-50.0%)., Conclusion: In this survey about uncomplicated TBAD, about half of surgeons recommended pre-emptive TEVAR in selected cases. The surgeon's predisposition towards intervention and large diameters appear to be the most influential factors in decision making. These findings underline the uncertainty in today's practice and emphasise the need for better predictive tools., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study explored private practice dietitians' perceptions of the impact of the Australian Chronic Disease Management (CDM) program on the conduct of their private practice, and the care provided to patients., Methods: Twenty-five accredited practising dietitians working in primary care participated in an individual semistructured telephone interview. Interview questions focussed on dietitians' perceptions of the proportion of patients receiving care through the CDM program, fee structures, adhering to reporting requirements and auditing. Transcript data were thematically analysed using a process of open coding., Results: Half of the dietitians (12/25) reported that most of their patients (>75%) received care through the CDM program. Many dietitians (19/25) reported providing identical care to patients using the CDM program and private patients, but most (17/25) described spending substantially longer on administrative tasks for CDM patients. Dietitians experienced pressure from doctors and patients to keep their fees low or to bulk-bill patients using the CDM program. One-third of interviewed dietitians (8/25) expressed concern about the potential to be audited by Medicare. Recommendations to improve the CDM program included increasing the consultation length and subsequent rebate available for dietetic consultations, and increasing the number of consultations to align with dietetic best-practice guidelines., Conclusions: The CDM program creates challenges for dietitians working in primary care, including how to sustain the quality of patient-centred care and yet maintain equitable business practices. To ensure the CDM program appropriately assists patients to receive optimal care, further review of the CDM program within the scope of dietetics is required.

Nearly 62% of primary care patients are overweight or obese, and obesity is now a National Health Priority Area. Weight management interventions in primary care currently generate little more than 1 kg of weight loss per patient over a 2-year period. Consequently, further strategies are required to improve the effectiveness of weight management in primary care. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have released updated guidelines for the management of overweight and obese patients in primary care. However, there is some disconnect between establishment of guidelines and their implementation in practice. Barriers to GPs using guidelines for the management of obesity include low self-efficacy, perceived insufficient time in consultations and the challenge of raising the topic of a patient's weight. Nonetheless, patients prefer to receive weight management support from GPs rather than other health professionals, suggesting that the demand on GPs to support patients in weight management will continue. GPs cannot afford to side-line obesity management, as obesity is likely to be the most prevalent modifiable risk factor associated with patients' long-term health. Without further strategies to support GPs in their management of patients' weight, obesity will continue to be an expensive and long-term public health issue.