OBJECTIVES: Betablockers have been convincingly shown to reduce total and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of hypertensive diabetic patients. In diabetic patients, after myocardial infarction, these agents confer a twice as high protective effect when compared to non-diabetic patients. However, most paradoxically, betablocking agents are used less frequently in diabetes. Control of hypertension is insufficient in most of the diabetic patients, probably because a combination of antihypertensive agents including betablockers is frequently needed to sufficiently control blood pressure but is not used in these patients. The fear of betablocker-associated side effects in diabetes may be partly responsible for the frequent antihypertensive mono-therapy and the resulting poor quality of blood pressure control among diabetic patients. DESIGN: We have performed an analysis of the literature to assess whether possible adverse metabolic effects, a higher risk of hypoglycaemia or less nephroprotective effects of beta1-selective betablocking agents could justify the reticence in prescribing these antihypertensive agents to diabetic patients. RESULTS: A thorough review of the literature does not indicate that beta1-selective betablocking agents have important adverse effects on glucose metabolism, prolong hypoglycaemia or mask hypoglycaemic symptoms. In diabetic nephropathy, betablockers are as nephroprotective as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: The unnecessary less frequent prescription of beta1-selective betablockers in diabetes mellitus may contribute to the higher cardiovascular mortality among these patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of regular chiropodist care on the recurrence rate of diabetic foot ulcers within 1 year. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-one diabetic outpatients with healed foot ulcers (age 65 +/- 11 years, 40 women and 51 men, diabetes type 1 (n = 6) or 2 (n = 85), BMI 28.5 +/- 4.4, diabetes duration 16 +/- 11 years, HbA(1c) 8.4 +/- 1.6%) were randomized to a group that received monthly remunerated routine chiropodist care (n = 47) or a control group (n = 44). RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 386 days, ulceration recurred in 18 patients in the chiropodist group and 25 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; 95% CI, 0.32, 1.08; P = 0.09). Analysis of ulceration per foot demonstrated a significant reduction (20 vs. 32 ulcerations; Cox relative risk [Cox RR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30, 0.93; P = 0.03) in favor of chiropodist care. Per protocol, analysis of patients who actually underwent chiropodist foot care on a regular basis also indicates the beneficial influence of chiropodist care with ulceration in 13 vs. 30 patients (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-1.01; P = 0.05) and in 15 vs. 37 feet (Cox RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90; P = 0.02) for the intervention and control groups, respectively. Minor amputation was required in two patients in the intervention group and one patient in the control group. Four patients in the control group and two patients in the intervention group died during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that secondary preventive measures by a chiropodist may reduce recurrence of foot ulcers in diabetic patients.