Significance: Chronic wounds include, but are not limited, to diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers. They are a challenge to wound care professionals and consume a great deal of healthcare resources around the globe. This review discusses the pathophysiology of complex chronic wounds and the means and modalities currently available to achieve healing in such patients. Recent Advances: Although often difficult to treat, an understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and specific attention toward managing these perturbations can often lead to successful healing. Critical Issues: Overcoming the factors that contribute to delayed healing are key components of a comprehensive approach to wound care and present the primary challenges to the treatment of chronic wounds. When wounds fail to achieve sufficient healing after 4 weeks of standard care, reassessment of underlying pathology and consideration of the need for advanced therapeutic agents should be undertaken. However, selection of an appropriate therapy is often not evidence based. Future Directions: Basic tenets of care need to be routinely followed, and a systematic evaluation of patients and their wounds will also facilitate appropriate care. Underlying pathologies, which result in the failure of these wounds to heal, differ among various types of chronic wounds. A better understanding of the differences between various types of chronic wounds at the molecular and cellular levels should improve our treatment approaches, leading to better healing rates, and facilitate the development of new more effective therapies. More evidence for the efficacy of current and future advanced wound therapies is required for their appropriate use.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a multicenter evaluation of a novel remote foot-temperature monitoring system to characterize its accuracy for predicting impending diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) in a cohort of patients with diabetes with previously healed DFU. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled 132 participants with diabetes and prior DFU in this 34-week cohort study to evaluate a remote foot-temperature monitoring system (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02647346). The study device was a wireless daily-use thermometric foot mat to assess plantar temperature asymmetries. The primary outcome of interest was development of nonacute plantar DFU, and the primary efficacy analysis was the accuracy of the study device for predicting the occurrence of DFU over several temperature asymmetry thresholds. RESULTS: Of the 129 participants who contributed evaluable data to the study, a total of 37 (28.7%) presented with 53 DFU (0.62 DFU/participant/year). At an asymmetry of 2.22°C, the standard threshold used in previous studies, the system correctly identified 97% of observed DFU, with an average lead time of 37 days and a false-positive rate of 57%. Increasing the temperature threshold to 3.20°C decreased sensitivity to 70% but similarly reduced the false-positive rate to 32% with approximately the same lead time of 35 days. Approximately 86% of the cohort used the system at least 3 days a week on average over the study. CONCLUSIONS: Given the encouraging study results and the significant burden of DFU, use of this mat may result in significant reductions in morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization.

OBJECTIVE Topical oxygen has been used for the treatment of chronic wounds for more than 50 years. Its effectiveness remains disputed due to the limited number of robust high-quality investigations. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of multimodality cyclical pressure Topical Wound Oxygen (TWO2) home care therapy in healing refractory diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) that had failed to heal with standard of care (SOC) alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with diabetes and chronic DFUs were randomized (double-blind) to either active TWO2 therapy or sham control therapy—both in addition to optimal SOC. The primary outcome was the percentage of ulcers in each group achieving 100% healing at 12 weeks. A group sequential design was used for the study with three predetermined analyses and hard stopping rules once 73, 146, and ultimately 220 patients completed the 12-week treatment phase. RESULTS At the first analysis point, the active TWO2 arm was found to be superior to the sham arm, with a closure rate of 41.7% compared with 13.5%. This difference in outcome produced an odds ratio (OR) of 4.57 (97.8% CI 1.19, 17.57), P = 0.010. After adjustment for University of Texas Classification (UTC) ulcer grade, the OR increased to 6.00 (97.8% CI 1.44, 24.93), P = 0.004. Cox proportional hazards modeling, also after adjustment for UTC grade, demonstrated >4.5 times the likelihood to heal DFUs over 12 weeks compared with the sham arm with a hazard ratio of 4.66 (97.8% CI 1.36, 15.98), P = 0.004. At 12 months postenrollment, 56% of active arm ulcers were closed compared with 27% of the sham arm ulcers (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS This sham-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial demonstrates that, at both 12 weeks and 12 months, adjunctive cyclical pressurized TWO2 therapy was superior in healing chronic DFUs compared with optimal SOC alone.