CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00499356GlideSoftUpdated Jul 11, 2007

Shear and Pressure Reducing Insoles for the Diabetic Foot

An interventional study of pressure reducing insole and GlideSoft® in Diabetes, Ulceration and Amputation, sponsored by Diabetica Solutions Inc.. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2007-07-11.

Sponsored by Diabetica Solutions Inc. · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
299
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

We evaluated the feasibility of the GlideSoft™ novel insole to reduce pressure and shear forces on the foot. No commercially available insoles are designed to reduce shear. Although insurance providers spend millions on diabetics' therapeutic insoles, there is no scientific data about shear or pressure reduction. We will evaluate the optimal bonded materials from Phase I compared to the Glidesoft™ design using the same combination of viscoelastic materials. We evaluate 2 patient groups of 150 patients per arm (300 total) in an 18 month trial. The control group patient arm wore a traditional bonded insole whereas another the second arm receive the GlideSoft™. At baseline, and at the end of the 18 month trial, in-shoe gait lab and in vitro biomechanical parameters measured pressure, shear, and material properties as these changed with wear. This Phase II eighteen (18) month clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of ShearSole™ reducing the incidence of diabetic ulcers. The overall study hypothesis was that GlideSoft™ provides significant shear reduction as compared to traditional insoles without sacrificing pressure reduction characteristics or durability.

Read the detailed description
  1. To evaluate the efficacy of a shear reducing shoe insole (GlideSoft) in reducing the incidence of diabetic foot pathology among high-risk patients. We studied the effectiveness of a shear reducing shoe insole to prevent foot ulcers in high-risk diabetics with sensory neuropathy, a history of a foot ulcer or a history of a partial foot amputation. The study comprised two treatment arms. The first group received standard therapy involving standard therapeutic shoes and insoles, patient education and regular foot evaluations by a physician. The second group received the same standard therapy, but instead of the standard insoles patients used the GlideSoft - a novel shear reducing insole. As determined in the Phase I study, the GlideSoft dramatically reduced shear forces compared to standard insoles, while performing equally well in reducing compressive forces. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary study outcome was for incident foot ulcers. Our hypothesis was that patients who use the GlideSoft will have fewer ulcers and that these ulcers will be less severe compared to patients evaluated in the Standard Insole Group.
  2. To evaluate changes in pressure and shear reducing capabilities of the two. To evaluate changes in pressure and shear reducing capabilities of the GlideSoft and standard insoles over the duration of use.

    We measured in-shoe pressures and in-vitro shear forces at the foot-insole interface at the beginning of the study and after patients wore the insole for four months or one "standard cycle of wear". We used the Novel Electronics, Inc. Pedar in-shoe pressure system to measure the interface between the foot and insole and the Shear Force Tester (see Phase I report) to evaluate shear forces. We expected that the GlideSoft would significantly reduce shear forces and provide equivalent reduction in vertical forces at both the day 0 evaluation and day 120 evaluations.

  3. To evaluate patient perceived benefits, satisfaction, and compliance with the 2. To evaluate changes in pressure and shear reducing capabilities of the GlideSoft and standard insoles over the duration of use.

We measured in-shoe pressures and in-vitro shear forces at the foot-insole interface at the beginning of the study and after patients wore the insole for four months or one "standard cycle of wear". We used the Novel Electronics, Inc. Pedar in-shoe pressure system to measure the interface between the foot and insole and the Shear Force Tester (see Phase I report) to evaluate shear forces. We expected that the GlideSoft would significantly reduce shear forces and provide equivalent reduction in vertical forces at both the day 0 evaluation and day 120 evaluations.

02

Conditions studied

  • Diabetes
  • Ulceration
  • Amputation
  • Foot Deformity
  • Neuropathy

Keywords

  • friction
  • pressure
  • insole
  • ulcer
  • prevention
03

In context

Foot Deformities

60 studies on the registry are indexed under Foot Deformities; 13 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 299 is above the median of 60 across 26 interventional studies indexed under Foot Deformities.

Browse Foot Deformities studies →

Lead sponsor

Diabetica Solutions Inc. is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Diagnosis of diabetes by WHO criteria
  • Ability to provide informed consent
  • 18-80 years of age

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with open ulcers or open amputation sites
  • Active Charcot arthropathy
  • Severe peripheral vascular disease
  • Active foot infection
  • Dementia
  • Impaired cognitive function
  • History of drug or alcohol abuse within one year of the study
  • Other conditions based on the PI's clinical judgment
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single
Enrollment
299 participants (actual)

Interventions

  • Devicepressure reducing insole
  • DeviceGlideSoft®
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Incident foot ulcers

    Time frame: 15 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Kevin R. Higgins, DPM
    San Antonio, Texas 78217, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Lavery LA, Higgins KR, Lanctot DR, Constantinides GP, Zamorano RG, Athanasiou KA, Armstrong DG, Agrawal CM. Preventing diabetic foot ulcer recurrence in high-risk patients: use of temperature monitoring as a self-assessment tool. Diabetes Care. 2007 Jan;30(1):14-20. doi: 10.2337/dc06-1600. PubMed 17192326 ↗
  • Lavery LA, LaFontaine J, Higgins KR, Lanctot DR, Constantinides G. Shear-reducing insoles to prevent foot ulceration in high-risk diabetic patients. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2012 Nov;25(11):519-24; quiz 525-6. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000422625.17407.93. PubMed 23080240 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 11, 2007, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00499356
Lead sponsor
Diabetica Solutions Inc.
Collaborators
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
First posted
Jul 11, 2007
Start date
May 2002
Completion
Jan 2005
Last update
Jul 11, 2007

Study contacts

Kevin R Higgins, DPM
principal investigator

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2007. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion