References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes statistics report. 2020. https://tinyurl.com/355u6kvc (accessed 16 June 2020)

Reiber GE. The epidemiology of diabetic foot problems. Diabet Med. 1996; 13:S6-11

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

Alexiadou K, Doupis J. Management of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Ther. 2012; 3:(1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-0120004-9

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

Huang Y-Y, Lin C-W, Yang H-M Survival and associated risk factors in patients with diabetes and amputations caused by infectious foot gangrene. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018; 11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-0170243-0

Morbach S, Furchert H, Gröblinghoff U Long-term prognosis of diabetic foot patients and their limbs: amputation and death over the course of a decade. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35:(10)2021-2027 https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0200

Rayman G, Vas P, Dhatariya K Guidelines on use of interventions to enhance healing of chronic foot ulcers in diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020; 36 https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3283

Moulik PK, Mtonga R, Gill GV. Amputation and mortality in new-onset diabetic foot ulcers stratified by etiology. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26:(2)491-494 https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.2.491

Izumi Y, Satterfield K, Lee S Mortality of first-time amputees in diabetics: a 10-year observation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009; 83:(1)126-131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2008.09.005

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; 18:258-266 https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334200506000-00012

Reyzelman A, Crews RT, Moore JC Clinical effectiveness of an acellular dermal regenerative tissue matrix compared to standard wound management in healing diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Int Wound J. 2009; 6:(3)196-208 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00585.x

Driver VR, Lavery VA, 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

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

Zelen CM, Orgill DP, Serena T A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre clinical trial examining healing rates, safety and cost to closure of an acellular reticular allogenic human dermis versus standard of care in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2017; 14:(2)307-315 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12600

Walters J, Cazzell S, Pham H Healing rates in a multicenter assessment of a sterile, room temperature, acellular dermal matrix versus conventional care wound management and an active comparator in the treatment of full-thickness diabetic foot ulcers. Eplasty. 2016; 16

Cornwell KG, Landsman A, James KS. Extracellular matrix biomaterials for soft tissue repair. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2009; 26:(4)507-523 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2009.08.001

Kavros SJ. Acellular fetal bovine dermal matrix for treatment of chronic ulcerations of the midfoot associated with Charcot neuroarthropathy. Foot Ankle Spec. 2012; 5:(4)230-234 https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640012449037

Kavros SJ, Dutra T, Gonzalez-Cruz R The use of PriMatrix, a fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix, in healing chronic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective multicenter study. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2014; 27:(8)356-362 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000451891.87020.69

Strauss NH, Brietstein RJ. Fetal bovine dermal repair scaffold used for the treatment of difficult-to-heal complex wounds. Wounds. 2012; 24:(1)327-334

Paredes JA, Bhagwandin S, Polanco T, Lantis JC. Managing real world venous leg ulcers with fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix: a single centre retrospective study. J. Wound Care. 2017; 26:S12-S19 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.Sup10.S12

Karr JC. Retrospective comparison of diabetic foot ulcer and venous stasis ulcer healing outcome between a dermal repair scaffold (PriMatrix) and a bilayered living cell therapy (Apligraf). Adv Skin Wound Care. 2011; 24:(3)119-125 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000395038.28398.88

Lullove E. Acellular fetal bovine dermal matrix in the treatment of nonhealing wounds in patients with complex comorbidities. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2012; 102:(3)233-239 https://doi.org/10.7547/1020233

Ramshaw JAM. Distribution of type III collagen in bovine skin of various ages. Connect Tissue Res. 1986; 14:(4)307-314 https://doi.org/10.3109/03008208609017473

Rennert RC, Sorkin M, Garg RK Cellular response to a novel fetal acellular collagen matrix: implications for tissue regeneration. Int J Biomater. 2013; 2013 https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/527957

Hayn E. Successful treatment of complex traumatic and surgical wounds with a foetal bovine dermal matrix. Int Wound J. 2014; 11:(6)675-680 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12028

Snyder RJ, Fife C, Moore Z. Components and quality measures of DIME (devitalized tissue, infection/inflammation, moisture balance, and edge preparation) in wound care. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016; 29:(5)205-215 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000482354.01988.b4

Gould L, Li WW. Defining complete wound closure: closing the gap in clinical trials and practice. Wound Repair Regen. 2019; 27:(3)201-224 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12707

Wendelken ME, Berg WT, Lichtenstein P Wounds measured from digital photographs using photodigital planimetry software: validation and rater reliability. Wounds. 2011; 23:(9)267-275

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Statistical considerations for clinical trials during the COVID-19 public health emergency: guidance for industry. 2020. https://tinyurl.com/rpfpwyjx (accessed 16 June 2020)

Armstrong DG, Swerdlow MA, Armstrong AA Five year mortality and direct costs of care for people with diabetic foot complications are comparable to cancer. J Foot Ankle Res. 2020; 13

Barnes MJ, Morton LF, Bennett RC Presence of type III collagen in guineapig dermal scar. Biochem J. 1976; 157:(1)263-266 https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1570263

Haukipuro K, Melkko J, Risteli L Synthesis of type I collagen in healing wounds in humans. Ann Surg. 1991; 213:(1)75-80 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658199101000-00013

Liu X, Wu H, Byrne M Type III collagen is crucial for collagen I fibrillogenesis and for normal cardiovascular development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997; 94:(5)1852-1856 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.5.1852

Veves A, Falanga V, Armstrong DG 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

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

Snyder D, Sullivan N, Margolis D, Schoelles K. Skin substitutes for treating chronic wounds.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2020

Margolis DJ, Allen-Taylor L, Hoffstad O, Berlin JA. Diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: predicting which ones will not heal. Am J Med. 2003; 115:(8)627-631 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.06.006

Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix for the closure of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomised controlled trial

02 February 2022
20 min read
Volume 6 · Issue 1

Abstract

Aim:

The purpose of this clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix (FBADM) plus standard of care (SOC) for treating hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).

Method:

A prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial was carried out. The study included a 2-week run-in period, a 12-week treatment phase and a 4-week follow-up phase. The primary endpoint was complete wound closure at 12 weeks.

Results:

Twenty-one US sites enrolled and randomised 226 patients with hard-to-heal DFUs. The study was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 207 patients, with 103 in the FBADM group and 104 in the SOC group. Of these participants, 161 completed the study per protocol (mPP population), with 79 receiving FBADM, and 82 without. At the first analysis point, patients treated with FBADM were found to be significantly more likely to achieve complete wound closure compared with SOC alone (mITT: 45.6% versus 27.9%; p=0.008; mPP: 59.5% versus 35.6%; p=0.002). The difference in outcome yielded an odds ratio of 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 3.9; p=0.008). Median time to closure within 12 weeks was 43 days for the FBADM group compared to 57 days for the SOC group (p=0.36). The median number of applications of FBADM to achieve closure was one. Adverse events were similar between groups and no product-related serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions:

These results indicate that in many cases a single application of FBADM in conjunction with SOC offers a safe, faster and more effective treatment of DFUs than SOC alone.

Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a major health and economic problem that significantly impacts both patients and the healthcare system. According to the 2020 National Diabetes Statistics Report, 34.2 million Americans have diabetes.1 Estimates suggest that as many as 15% of patients with diabetes may develop a DFU in their lifetime.2,3 Concomitant conditions associated with diabetes, such as peripheral vascular disease, neuropathy and poor blood glucose control, contribute to the slow healing rates and high rates of recurrence of these wounds.4,5,6,7 An estimated 40% of patients with DFUs experience a recurrence within 1 year and 65% within 5 years, with 15% of patients undergoing an amputation during a 10-year follow-up period.8 The 5-year mortality rate for patients who undergo lower extremity amputation due to a DFU remains alarmingly high at 56%.6,7,9,10

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