Approximately 2 million people in the United States are living with limb loss, and this figure is expected to double by 2050. Lower-limb amputation accounts for the vast majority of all amputations, and diabetes—specifically, diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs)—is the leading cause of nontraumatic...
Printer-friendly version
Submitted by Aletha Tippett MD on September 27th, 2017
Blog Category:
By Aletha Tippett MD
Oh, what a shock to see a study published on atorvastatin treatment in the adult patients at risk of diabetic foot infection in a recent issue of Wounds.1 The conclusion of this study was that taking atorvastatin for at least three months reduced the risk of diabetic foot infections (DFI). The authors also theorized that statins could prevent infection in patients with diabetes.
Since this study was absolutely contradictory to what I have held about statins for my entire career, I read the article several times very carefully. In this study, the authors took two groups of patients. One group of patients with diabetes was admitted to the hospital with a DFI, and they subdivided this group into one taking atorvastatin, and one not taking atorvastatin.
The second group in this study was composed of outpatient individuals with diabetes who did not have a DFI, again subdivided into atorvastatin taking or not. The hospital group was called the experimental group. This group contained patients who had had diabetes a lot longer than the control group (the outpatient group without DFI) - 14 years versus 8 years, on average. The experimental group also had more smokers. The author did statistical analysis on the two groups, and evaluated the results of taking or not taking atorvastatin. Sixty-six percent of the control group took atorvastatin, while only 49% of the experimental group took atorvastatin.
Critique of the Study
This study, in my opinion, is a sham of science—nothing was really done to study. Two totally different patient groups were selected and compared. My reaction is: “so what?” This doesn’t mean anything, and I think the conclusions drawn are irrelevant. The problem is that statins will be touted as preventing and treating infection. In my published report on treating peripheral neuropathy, 100% of patients stopping statin therapy had improvement in their neuropathy symptoms.2 That is not related to infection, but relates to statin side-effects that can be very pronounced (not rare, as stated in this article).
My word to the wise is: be careful about what you read, and read everything critically.
References:
1. Nassaji M, Ghorbani R, Saboori Shkofte H. Previous Atorvastatin Treatment and Risk of Diabetic Foot Infection in Adult Patients: A Case-control Study.
Wounds. 2017 Jul;29(7):196-201. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
2. Tippett AW. Treating Peripheral Neuropathy. Wounds 2014; 26(3); 65-71.
About The Author
Aletha Tippett MD is a family medicine and wound care expert, founder and president of the Hope of Healing Foundation®, family physician, and international speaker on wound care.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of WoundSource, Kestrel Health Information, Inc., its affiliates, or subsidiary companies.
- Aletha Tippett MD's blog
- Log in to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Recommended for You
-
April 30th, 2021 -
September 1st, 2020By the WoundSource Editors
Lower extremity wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), venous ulcers, and arterial ulcers have been linked to poor patient outcomes, such as patient mortality and recurrence of the wound. Although precise recurrence rates can be difficult to...
-
January 15th, 2021By Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine Journal Review Club
Chronic wounds require an increased amount of oxygen to help with cellular function and growth. They often manifest with biofilm, slough, and necrotic tissue, all of which deprive cells of the oxygen they need...