References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report. 2021. https://tinyurl.com/4dxp9rcs (accessed 23 May 2024)

Reiber GE The epidemiology of diabetic foot problems.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 1996

Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36:(4)1033-1046 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-2625

Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005; 293:(2)217-228 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.2.217

Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Berlin JA Healing of diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers receiving standard treatment. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 1999; 22:(5)692-695 https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.22.5.692

Pérez-Panero AJ, Ruiz-Muñoz M, Cuesta-Vargas AI, Gónzalez-Sánchez M Prevention, assessment, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot based on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Medicine. 2019; 98:(35) https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016877

Incidence of diabetic foot ulcer and lower extremity amputation among Medicare beneficiaries, 2006 to 2008. 2011. 2011. https://tinyurl.com/jpsv8n7f (accessed 22 May 2024)

Serena TE, Yaakov R, Moore S A randomized controlled clinical trial of a hypothermically stored amniotic membrane for use in diabetic foot ulcers. J Comp Eff Res. 2020; 9:(1)23-34 https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2019-0142

Martinengo L, Olsson M, Bajpai R Prevalence of chronic wounds in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2019; 29:8-15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.10.005

Frykberg RG, Banks J Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care. 2015; 4:(9)560-582 https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0635

Everett E, Mathioudakis N Update on management of diabetic foot ulcers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018; 1411:(1)153-165 https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13569

Wang C, Mai L, Yang C Reducing major lower extremity amputations after the introduction of a multidisciplinary team in patient with diabetes foot ulcer. BMC Endocr Disord. 2016; 16:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-016-0111-0

Amin N, Doupis J Diabetic foot disease: From the evaluation of the “foot at risk” to the novel diabetic ulcer treatment modalities. World J Diabetes. 2016; 7:(7)153-164 https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v7.i7.153

Armstrong DG, Wrobel J, Robbins JM Guest Editorial: are diabetes-related wounds and amputations worse than cancer?. Int Wound J. 2007; 4:(4)286-287 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00392.x

Noor S, Khan RU, Ahmad J Understanding diabetic foot infection and its management. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2017; 11:(2)149-156 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2016.06.023

Raghav A, Khan ZA, Labala RK Financial burden of diabetic foot ulcers to world: a progressive topic to discuss always. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2018; 9:(1)29-31 https://doi.org/10.1177/2042018817744513

Rice JB, Desai U, Cummings AK Burden of diabetic foot ulcers for medicare and private insurers. (Erratum in: Diabetes Care 2014; 37(3):651–658.). Diabetes Care. 2014; 37:(3)651-658 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2176

Rice JB, Desai U, Ristovska L Economic outcomes among Medicare patients receiving bioengineered cellular technologies for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J Med Econ. 2015; 18:(8)586-595 https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1031793

Hicks CW, Selvarajah S, Mathioudakis N Trends and determinants of costs associated with the inpatient care of diabetic foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg. 2014; 60:(5)1247-1254.e2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2014.05.009

Järbrink K, Ni G, Sönnergren H Prevalence and incidence of chronic wounds and related complications: a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0329-y

Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Kirsner RS Diagnosis and management of diabetic foot complications.: American Diabetes Association; 2018 https://doi.org/10.2337/db20182-1

Lavery LA, Suludere MA, Attinger CE WHS (Wound Healing Society) guidelines update: Diabetic foot ulcer treatment guidelines. Wound Repair Regen. 2024; 32:(1)34-46 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13133

Driver VR, Lavery LA, Reyzelman AM A clinical trial of Integra Template for diabetic foot ulcer treatment. Wound Repair Regen. 2015; 23:(6)891-900 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12357

Lavery LA, Fulmer J, Shebetka KA The efficacy and safety of Grafix for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a multi-centre, controlled, randomised, blinded, clinical trial. Int Wound J. 2014; 11:(5)554-560 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12329

Cazzell SM, Lange DL, Dickerson JE, Slade HB The management of diabetic foot ulcers with porcine small intestine submucosa tri-layer matrix: a randomized controlled trial. Adv Wound Care. 2015; 4:(12)711-718 https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0645

Sabolinski ML, Veves A Graftskin (Apligraf) in neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds: a Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice. 2000; 12:(5)33A-36A

DiDomenico LA, Orgill DP, Galiano RD Aseptically processed placental membrane improves healing of diabetic foot ulcerations: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016; 4:(10) https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001095

Niknejad H, Peirovi H, Jorjani M Properties of the amniotic membrane for potential use in tissue engineering. Eur Cell Mater. 2008; 7:88-99 https://doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v015a07

McQuilling JP, Vines JB, Mowry KC In vitro assessment of a novel, hypothermically stored amniotic membrane for use in a chronic wound environment. Int Wound J. 2017; 14:(6)993-1005 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12748

McQuilling JP, Kimmerling KA, Staples MC, Mowry KC Evaluation of two distinct placental-derived membranes and their effect on tenocyte responses in vitro. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019; 13:(8)1316-1330 https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2876

McQuilling JP, Kammer M, Kimmerling KA, Mowry KC Characterisation of dehydrated amnion chorion membranes and evaluation of fibroblast and keratinocyte responses in vitro. Int Wound J. 2019; 16:(3)827-840 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13103

McQuilling JP, Burnette M, Kimmerling KA A mechanistic evaluation of the angiogenic properties of a dehydrated amnion chorion membrane in vitro and in vivo. Wound Repair Regen. 2019; 27:(6)609-621 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12757

Koob TJ, Rennert R, Zabek N Biological properties of dehydrated human amnion/chorion composite graft: implications for chronic wound healing. Int Wound J. 2013; 10:(5)493-500 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12140

Organogenesis. Allograft tissue information and NuShield instructions for use. 2024. https://tinyurl.com/4n7256t4 (accessed 4 June 2024)

Koullias GJ Efficacy of the application of a purified native collagen with embedded antimicrobial barrier followed by a placental allograft on a diverse group of nonhealing wounds of various etiologies. Wounds. 2021; 33:(1)20-27 https://doi.org/10.25270/wnds/2021.2027

Caporusso J, Abdo R, Karr J Clinical experience using a dehydrated amnion/chorion membrane construct for the management of wounds. Wounds. 2019; 31:S19-S27

Hingorani A, LaMuraglia GM, Henke P The management of diabetic foot: a clinical practice guideline by the Society for Vascular Surgery in collaboration with the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Society for Vascular Medicine. J Vasc Surg. 2016; 63:3S-21S https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.10.003

Hopkins RB, Burke N, Harlock J Economic burden of illness associated with diabetic foot ulcers in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0687-5

Sumpio BE Contemporary evaluation and management of the diabetic foot. Scientifica. 2012; 2012:1-17 https://doi.org/10.6064/2012/435487

Bus SA The role of pressure offloading on diabetic foot ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016; 138:179S-187S https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002686

Marston WA, Hanft J, Norwood P, Pollak R The efficacy and safety of Dermagraft in improving the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a prospective randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26:(6)1701-1705 https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.6.1701

Veves A, Falanga V, Armstrong DG, Sabolinski ML Graftskin, a human skin equivalent, is effective in the management of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24:(2)290-295 https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.24.2.290

Snyder RJ, Shimozaki K, Tallis A A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled evaluation of the use of dehydrated amniotic membrane allograft compared to standard of care for the closure of chronic diabetic foot ulcer. Wounds. 2016; 28:(3)70-77

Guo Q, Ying G, Jing O Influencing factors for the recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers: a meta-analysis. Int Wound J. 2023; 20:(5)1762-1775 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14017

Falanga V, Margolis D, Alvarez O Rapid healing of venous ulcers and lack of clinical rejection with an allogeneic cultured human skin equivalent. Arch Dermatol. 1998; 134:(3)293-300 https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.134.3.293

Gorenstein S, Bain M, Oropallo A Effectiveness of a purified type I collagen matrix plus the antimicrobial polyhexamethylene biguanide for use in cutaneous wounds: analysis of a population of three combined registries. Wounds. 2023; 35:(9)e290-e296 https://doi.org/10.25270/wnds/20174

Sanchez A, Hartstein A, Ashry H, Raza M Use of hypothermically stored amniotic membrane on diabetic foot ulcers: a multicentre retrospective case series. J Wound Care. 2024; 33:S16-S23 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2024.33.Sup3.S16

Kirsner RS, Sabolinski ML, Parsons NB Comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct vs. a dehydrated human amniotic membrane allograft for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in a real world setting. Wound Repair Regen. 2015; 23:(5)737-744 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12332

Sabolinski ML, Gibbons G Comparative effectiveness of a bilayered living cellular construct and an acellular fetal bovine collagen dressing in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. J Comp Eff Res. 2018; 7:(8)797-805 https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0031

Marston WA, Sabolinski ML, Parsons NB, Kirsner RS Comparative effectiveness of a bilayered living cellular construct and a porcine collagen wound dressing in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Wound Repair Regen. 2014; 22:(3)334-340 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12156

McQuilling JP, Vines JB, Kimmerling KA, Mowry KC Proteomic comparison of amnion and chorion and evaluation of the effects of processing on placental membranes. Wounds. 2017; 29:(6)E36-E40

Kimmerling KA, McQuilling JP, Staples MC, Mowry KC Tenocyte cell density, migration, and extracellular matrix deposition with amniotic suspension allograft. J Orthop Res. 2019; 37:(2)412-420 https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24173

Carpenter S, Davis S, Fitzgerald R Expert recommendations for optimizing outcomes in the management of biofilm to promote healing of chronic wounds. Wounds. 2016; 28:S1-S20

Wolcott RD, Rhoads DD, Bennett ME Chronic wounds and the medical biofilm paradigm. J Wound Care. 2010; 19:(2)45-53 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2010.19.2.46966

Laurent I, Astère M, Wang KR Efficacy and time sensitivity of amniotic membrane treatment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8:(5)967-979 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-017-0298-8

Haugh AM, Witt JG, Hauch A Amnion membrane in diabetic foot wounds: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017; 5:(4) https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001302

Fife CE, Carter MJ Wound care outcomes and associated cost among patients treated in US outpatient wound centers: Data from the US Wound Registry. Wounds. 2012; 24:(1)10-17

Nussbaum SR, Carter MJ, Fife CE An economic evaluation of the impact, cost, and Medicare policy implications of chronic nonhealing wounds. Value Health. 2018; 21:(1)27-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.007

Eaglstein WH, Kirsner RS Expectations for comparative effectiveness and efficacy research: with welcomed questions may come unwelcome answers. JAMA Dermatol. 2013; 149:(1)18-19 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.1324

van Staa TP, Leufkens HG, Zhang B, Smeeth L A comparison of cost effectiveness using data from randomized trials or actual clinical practice: selective cox-2 inhibitors as an example. PLoS Med. 2009; 6:(12) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000194

Dehydrated amnion chorion membrane versus standard of care for diabetic foot ulcers: a randomised controlled trial

02 December 2024
Volume 8 · Issue 3

Abstract

Objective:

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) continue to challenge wound care practitioners. This prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effectiveness of a dehydrated Amnion Chorion Membrane (dACM) (Organogenesis Inc., US) versus standard of care (SoC) alone in complex DFUs in a challenging patient population.

Method:

Subjects with a DFU extending into dermis, subcutaneous tissue, tendon, capsule, bone or joint were enrolled in a 12-week trial. They were allocated equally to two treatment groups: dACM (plus SoC); or SoC alone. The primary endpoint was frequency of wound closure determined by a Cox analysis that adjusted for duration and wound area. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine median time to complete wound closure (CWC).

Results:

The cohort comprised 218 patients, and these were split equally between the two treatment groups with 109 patients in each. A Cox analysis showed that the estimated frequency of wound closure for the dACM plus SoC group was statistically superior to the SoC alone group at week 4 (12% versus 8%), week 6 (22% versus 11%), week 8 (31% versus 21%), week 10 (42% versus 27%) and week 12 (50% versus 35%), respectively (p=0.04). The computed hazard ratio (1.48 (confidence interval: 0.95, 2.29) showed a 48% greater probability of wound closure in favour of the dACM group. Median time to wound closure for dACM-treated ulcers was 84 days compared to ‘not achieved’ in the SoC-treated group (i.e., ≥50% of SoC-treated DFUs failed to heal by week 12; p=0.04).

Conclusion:

In an adequately powered DFU RCT, dACM increased the frequency, decreased the median time, and improved the probability of CWC when compared with SoC alone. dACM demonstrated beneficial effects in DFUs in a complex patient population.

Prevalence of diabetes in the US has continually increased over the past two decades, peaking at 11.6% of the population in 2021.1 There are an estimated 37.3 million individuals with diabetes in the US, 28.7 million of whom have a confirmed diagnosis.2,3,4 The presence of diabetes carries increased risk for development of lower extremity ulcers, primarily through development of peripheral neuropathy and ischaemia from peripheral vascular disease.5,6 Minor injuries to the skin may go unnoticed and develop into a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Patients with diabetes are estimated to carry a 25% lifetime risk of developing a DFU.4 In the US, the estimated overall incidence of DFUs ranges from 6–13% of patients with diabetes, with >1 million having a hard-to-heal DFU (an ulcer persisting for >6 weeks).7,8,9 Among patients with diabetes, >50% of DFUs have been reported to remain unhealed after 12 months. These patients carry a 40% risk of infection for every six months that their wounds remain unhealed.8,10,11 In the worst case, this may lead to lower limb amputation. Approximately 28 out of every 10,000 patients with diabetes will undergo amputation, with up to 85% of all non-traumatic amputations being attributable to DFUs.12,13 In the event of amputation, the 5-year mortality risk is higher than that of many common forms of cancer.14,15,16

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Wound Central and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for wound care professionals. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Access to clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical updates each month