| Literature DB >> 26288655 |
Agnetha Folestad1, Martin Ålund2, Susanne Asteberg2, Jesper Fowelin3, Ylva Aurell4, Jan Göthlin4, Jean Cassuto5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is currently known of the pathophysiological mechanisms triggering Charcot arthropathy and regulating its recovery although foot trauma has been proposed as a major initiating factor by activation of proinflammatory cytokines leading to increased osteoclastogenic activity and progressive bone destruction. Several members of the IL-17 family of proinflammatory cytokines have been shown to play a key role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory conditions affecting bone and joints but none has previously been studied in Charcot foot patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of IL-17A, IL-17E and IL-17F in patients presenting with Charcot foot.Entities:
Keywords: Bone healing; Charcot arthropathy; Diabetes; Interleukin-17; Offloading
Year: 2015 PMID: 26288655 PMCID: PMC4539704 DOI: 10.1186/s13047-015-0096-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Foot Ankle Res ISSN: 1757-1146 Impact factor: 2.303
Clinical and demographic data in Charcot patients, diabetic controls and healthy subjects
| Charcot arthropathy Inclusion | Charcot arthropathy End of study | Diabetic controls Inclusion | Diabetic controls +2Y | Healthy subjects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 26) | (n = 26) | (n = 20) | (n = 20) | (n = 20) | |
| Age (median- range, years) | 61 (42–87) | 63 (42–87) | 55 (20–94) | 57 (20–94) | 58 (24–78) |
| Gender (n) | |||||
| Females | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 |
| Males | 16 | 16 | 12 | 12 | 11 |
| Diabetes type 1/2 (n) | 11/15 | 11/15 | 6/14 | 6/14 | - |
| Diabetes duration (years) | 25 ± 4 | - | 14 ± 6 | - | - |
| Debut foot symptoms (weeks, median-range) | 8.4 (1–24) | - | - | - | - |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 149 ± 6 | 148 ± 6 | 127 ± 4 | - | 138 ± 4 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 80 ± 3 | 80 ± 3 | 76 ± 2 | - | 81 ± 3 |
| Arterial toe pressure (mmHg) | |||||
| Charcot foot | 114 ± 11 | 122 ± 8 | 115 ± 4 | - | - |
| Contralateral foot | 129 ± 8 | 119 ± 7 | 114 ± 5 | - | - |
| Skin temperature (°C) | |||||
| Charcot foot | 31.3 ± 0.8a | 29.7 ± 0.7 | 30,0 ± 0,4 | - | - |
| Contralateral foot | 28.8 ± 0.9 | 29.3 ± 0.7 | 30,2 ± 0,4 | - | - |
| Pain at rest (n) | 4 | 0 | 0 | - | - |
| Pain at weight bearing (n) | 17 | 0 | 0 | - | - |
| Foot distorsion (n) | 4 | 4 | 0 | - | 0 |
| Total contact cast (months) | - | 7.7 ± 1.0 | - | - | - |
| Charcot pattern I/II/III/IV/V (n) | 2/16/5/0/3 | - | - | - | - |
| Nephropathy/Cardiac disease (n) | 7/4 | 7/4 | 2/1 | 2/1 | 0/0 |
| Hb (g/L) | 127 ± 3 | 129 ± 3 | 136 ± 2 | 139 ± 3 | 143 ± 5 |
| S-CRP (mg/L) | 10.6 ± 3b,c | 10.0 ± 2d,e | 3.6 ± 0,8 | 3.8 ± 0,8 | 2.7 ± 0,7 |
| SR (mm) | 28.8 ± 6f,g | 23 ± 5 | 11 ± 2 | 10 ± 2 | 6 ± 4 |
| S-Kreatinin (μmol/L) | 112 ± 19 | 101 ± 12 | 83 ± 8 | 89 ± 7 | 78 ± 5 |
| HbA1c (mmol/mol) | 60 ± 3 | 64 ± 2 | 58 ± 3 | 56 ± 2 | - |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.8 ± 0.3 | 7.4 ± 0.3 | 7.5 ± 0.2 | 7.3 ± 0.2 | - |
Mean ± SEM when not given differently. a p = 0.010 Charcot foot versus contralateral foot at inclusion. b p = 0.044 for Charcot at inclusion versus diabetic controls at inclusion.c p = 0.012 for Charcot at inclusion versus healthy. d p = 0.038 Charcot end of study vs diabetic controls +2y. e p = 0.022 Charcot end of study vs healthy. f p = 0.001 Charcot at inclusion versus diabetic controls at inclusion. g p < 0.001 for Charcot at inclusion versus healthy. All other differences are not significant. Charcot pattern I-V on radiographs as described by Sanders and Frykberg (see ref: Papanas and Maltezos, 2013 [17])
Staging of radiographic changes in the Charcot arthropathy foot as described by Sella and Barrette (1999) [18] based on weight-bearing radiographic examinations of the diseased foot and inflammation/bone edema on MRI. Numbers in table are number of patients
| Radiographs | Inclusion | 1 W | 6 M | 12 M | 18 M | 24 M |
| Stage 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stage 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stage 2 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
| Stage 3 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Stage 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 17 | 25 |
| MRI | Inclusion | 1 W | 6 M | 12 M | 18 M | 24 M |
| Soft tissue edema | 22 | 22 | 18 | 14 | 7 | 0 |
| Bone marrow edema | 18 | 18 | 15 | 13 | 5 | 0 |
Fig. 1Plasma levels of IL-17A (pg/ml) in Charcot patients (n = 26), diabetes control patients (n = 20) and healthy donors (n = 20). IL-17A was not significantly different between Charcot patients, diabetic control patients and healthy subjects at inclusion into the study (p = 0.77) or at 2 years (p = 0.16). Plasma IL-17A in Charcot patients had not changed significantly at 2 years relative value at inclusion (p = 0.33) (1a). IL-17A in Charcot patients had increased significantly at 4 months relative value at inclusion (p = 0.002) (1b). Mean ± SEM
Fig. 2Plasma levels of IL-IL-17E (pg/ml) in Charcot patients (n = 26), diabetes control patients (n = 20) and healthy donors (n = 20). IL-17E was not significantly different between Charcot patients, diabetic control patients and healthy subjects at inclusion into the study (p = 0.73) (2a). At 2 years, IL-17E was significantly higher for Charcot patients relative diabetic controls (p = 0.021) and relative healthy (p = 0.002) but not between diabetic controls and healthy (p = 0.32). Plasma IL-17E in Charcot patients had not changed significantly at 2 years relative value at inclusion (p = 0.23) (2a). IL-17E in Charcot patients had increased significantly at 4 months relative value at inclusion (p < 0.001) (2b). Mean ± SEM
Fig. 3Plasma levels of IL-17F (pg/ml) in Charcot patients (n = 26), diabetes control patients (n = 20) and healthy donors (n = 20). Plasma IL-17F at start of study was significantly lower in Charcot patients versus diabetic controls (p = 0.024) and healthy subjects (p = 0.047) but not between diabetic controls and healthy (p = 0.69). IL-17F was not significantly different between Charcot patients, diabetic control patients and healthy subjects at 2 years (p = 0.95) (3a). IL-17F in Charcot patients was significantly higher at 2 years versus inclusion value (p = 0.003) (3a) but not at 4 months versus inclusion value (3b) (p = 0.57). Mean ± SEM