Cellular versus acellular matrix devices in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: study protocol for a comparative efficacy randomized controlled trial

Trials

Roslyn Rivkah Isseroff²  Sara Dahle²  Chin-Shang Li¹  Hadar Lev-Tov² 

[1] Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, University of California Davis, MS1C Room 145, Davis, CA, 95616, USA;Department of Dermatology, University of California Davis, 3301 C Street, Sacramento, CA, 95816, USA

关键词: Wound matrix;    Dermagraft;    Oasis;    Nonhealing wounds;    Chronic wounds;    Diabetic foot ulcer;   

Others  :  1094982
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-8

 received in 2012-07-22, accepted in 2012-12-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represent a significant source of morbidity and an enormous financial burden. Standard care for DFUs involves systemic glucose control, ensuring adequate perfusion, debridement of nonviable tissue, off-loading, control of infection, local wound care and patient education, all administered by a multidisciplinary team. Unfortunately, even with the best standard of care (SOC) available, only 24% or 30% of DFUs will heal at weeks 12 or 20, respectively.

The extracellular matrix (ECM) in DFUs is abnormal and its impairment has been proposed as a key target for new therapeutic devices. These devices intend to replace the aberrant ECM by implanting a matrix, either devoid of cells or enhanced with fibroblasts, keratinocytes or both as well as various growth factors. These new bioengineered skin substitutes are proposed to encourage angiogenesis and in-growth of new tissue, and to utilize living cells to generate cytokines needed for wound repair.

To date, the efficacy of bioengineered ECM containing live cellular elements for improving healing above that of a SOC control group has not been compared with the efficacy of an ECM devoid of cells relative to the same SOC. Our hypothesis is that there is no difference in the improved healing effected by either of these two product types relative to SOC.

Methods/Design

To test this hypothesis we propose a randomized, single-blind, clinical trial with three arms: SOC, SOC plus Dermagraft® (bioengineered ECM containing living fibroblasts) and SOC plus Oasis® (ECM devoid of living cells) in patients with nonhealing DFUs. The primary outcome is the percentage of subjects that achieved complete wound closure by week 12.

Discussion

If our hypothesis is correct, then immense cost savings could be realized by using the orders-of-magnitude less expensive acellular ECM device without compromising patient health outcomes. The article describes the protocol proposed to test our hypothesis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01450943. Registered: 7 October 2011

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Lev-Tov et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Center for Disease Control and Prevention: National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes and Prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
• [2]Margolis DJ, Hoffstad O, Nafash J, Leonard CE, Freeman CP, Hennessy S, Wiebe DJ: Location, location, location: geographic clustering of lower-extremity amputation among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011, 34:2363-2367.
• [3]Boulton AJ, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J: The global burden of diabetic foot disease. Lancet 2005, 366:1719-1724.
• [4]Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S, Kirsner R, Lambert L, Hunt TK, Gottrup F, Gurtner GC, Longaker MT: Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen 2009, 17:763-771.
• [5]Apelqvist J, Bakker K, van Houtum WH, Schaper NC: Practical guidelines on the management and prevention of the diabetic foot: based upon the International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot (2007) Prepared by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008, 24(Suppl 1):S181-S187.
• [6]Falanga V: Wound healing and its impairment in the diabetic foot. Lancet 2005, 366:1736-1743.
• [7]Brem H, Sheehan P, Boulton AJ: Protocol for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Am J Surg 2004, 187:1S-10S.
• [8]Game FL, Hinchliffe RJ, Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Bakker K, Hartemann A, Löndahl M, Price PE, Jeffcoate WJ, International Working Group on Diabetic Foot: Specific guidelines on wound and wound-bed management 2011. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012, 28(Suppl 1):232-233.
• [9]Bakker K, Apelqvist J, Schaper NC: Practical guidelines on the management and prevention of the diabetic foot 2011. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012, 28(Suppl 1):225-231.
• [10]Lepantalo M, Apelqvist J, Setacci C, Ricco JB, de Donato G, Becker F, Robert-Ebadi H, Cao P, Eckstein HH, De Rango P, Diehm N, Schmidli J, Teraa M, Moll FL, Dick F, Davies AH: Chapter V: Diabetic foot. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011, 42(Suppl 2):S60-S74.
• [11]Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Berlin JA: Healing of diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers receiving standard treatment. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 1999, 22:692-695.
• [12]Singer AJ, Clark RA: Cutaneous wound healing. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:738-746.
• [13]Gary Sibbald R, Woo KY: The biology of chronic foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008, 24(Suppl 1):S25-S30.
• [14]Loots MA, Lamme EN, Zeegelaar J, Mekkes JR, Bos JD, Middelkoop E: Differences in cellular infiltrate and extracellular matrix of chronic diabetic and venous ulcers versus acute wounds. J Invest Dermatol 1998, 111:850-857.
• [15]Medina A, Scott PG, Ghahary A, Tredget EE: Pathophysiology of chronic nonhealing wounds. J Burn Care Rehabil 2005, 26:306-319.
• [16]Mendoza-Naranjo A, Cormie P, Serrano AE, Wang CM, Thrasivoulou C, Sutcliffe JE, Gilmartin DJ, Tsui J, Serena TE, Phillips AR, Becker DL: Overexpression of the gap junction protein Cx43 as found in diabetic foot ulcers can retard fibroblast migration. Cell Biol Int 2012, 36:661-667.
• [17]Neut D, Tijdens-Creusen EJ, Bulstra SK, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ: Biofilms in chronic diabetic foot ulcers – a study of 2 cases. Acta Orthop 2011, 82:383-385.
• [18]Bajpai S, Shukla VK, Tripathi K, Srikrishna S, Singh RK: Targeting connexin 43 in diabetic wound healing: future perspectives. J Postgrad Med 2009, 55:143-149.
• [19]Panuncialman J, Falanga V: The science of wound bed preparation. Surg Clin North Am 2009, 89:611-626.
• [20]Gentzkow GD, Iwasaki SD, Hershon KS, Mengel M, Prendergast JJ, Ricotta JJ, Steed DP, Lipkin S: Use of dermagraft, a cultured human dermis, to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 1996, 19:350-354.
• [21]Niezgoda JA, Van Gils CC, Frykberg RG, Hodde JP: Randomized clinical trial comparing OASIS Wound Matrix to Regranex Gel for diabetic ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care 2005, 18(5 Pt 1):258-266.
• [22]For Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers [http://www.dermagraft.com/about/overview] webcite
• [23]Healthpoint Offers Two Oasis® Matrix Products [http://www.oasiswoundmatrix.com/] webcite
• [24]Wu SC, Jensen JL, Weber AK, Robinson DE, Armstrong DG: Use of pressure offloading devices in diabetic foot ulcers: do we practice what we preach? Diabetes Care 2008, 31:2118-2119.
• [25]Ranjita Misra LL, David V, Ashley M, Khanna SR, Sen CK: [http://misra.tamu.edu/chronic_healing.html] webcitePredictors of Diabetic Wound Healing by Racial/Ethnic Categories [poster]. Columbus OH: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Wound Center; 2012.
• [26]Goodson WH, Goodson WH, Hunt TK: Wound healing and aging. J Invest Dermatol 1979, 73:88-91.
• [27]Elliott AC, Hynan LS: A SAS® macro implementation of a multiple comparison post hoc test for a Kruskal–Wallis analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2011, 102:75-80.
• [28]Statistical Analysis System [http://www.sas.com] webcite
• [29]Lundh A, Krogsboll LT, Gotzsche PC: Sponsors' participation in conduct and reporting of industry trials: a descriptive study. Trials 2012, 13:146. BioMed Central Full Text