# Management and Clinical Outcomes of Scleredema Diabeticorum: A Scoping Review

**Authors:** Weeratian Tawanwongsri, Chime Eden

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/diseases13100346 · Diseases · 2025-10-17

## TL;DR

This review summarizes the current evidence on treatments for scleredema diabeticorum, highlighting PUVA and IVIG as potentially effective but noting the need for more rigorous studies.

## Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive overview of treatment outcomes for scleredema diabeticorum based on a scoping review of recent literature.

## Key findings

- PUVA therapy showed improvement in 85.7% of patients.
- Methotrexate alone had low effectiveness (36.4% improvement).
- Multicenter trials are needed for evidence-based treatment guidelines.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map the available evidence for the management of scleredema diabeticorum (SD) to summarize the documented clinical outcomes with the aim to inform clinical practice and identify research gaps. Methods: We conducted a scoping review identifying studies published in English from January 2005 to July 2025 through a comprehensive search of Scopus, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports on treatment interventions and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and narratively and descriptively synthesized data. Results: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria: 39 single-patient case reports, five case series, and one multicenter observational study. The most common interventions were PUVA (8 studies, 14 patients; 12/14 improved, 85.7%), methotrexate (8 studies, 22 patients; 8/22 improved, 36.4%), and improved glycemic control (9 studies, 12 patients; mixed responses). Across small case reports/series, PUVA, UVA-1, and IVIG were most frequently reported as beneficial. Methotrexate monotherapy showed low and inconsistent effectiveness, with higher responses when combined with other agents. Other reported therapies included colchicine, electron-beam radiation, tranilast, and topical hyaluronidase. Conclusions: PUVA, UVA-1, and IVIG may offer benefit, while methotrexate alone is often ineffective. Evidence is predominantly from case reports and small series, which makes it difficult to generalize. Multicenter trials with standardized protocols are needed to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations.

## Linked entities

- **Chemicals:** methotrexate (PubChem CID 4112), colchicine (PubChem CID 2833), tranilast (PubChem CID 5282230)
- **Diseases:** scleredema diabeticorum (MONDO:0006606)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** SD (MESH:D012592)
- **Chemicals:** UVA-1 (-), Methotrexate (MESH:D008727), colchicine (MESH:D003078), tranilast (MESH:C012293)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12564329/full.md

## Figures

1 figure with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12564329/full.md

## References

74 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12564329/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12564329