Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2024-12
Systematic Review of Cellular,Acellular,and Matrix-like Products and Indirect Treatment Comparison Between Cellular/Acellular and Amniotic/Nonamniotic Grafts in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant review focuses on the efficacy of cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs) in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Recent Advances:
Although CAMPs have been incorporated into the clinical algorithm for chronic wounds, evidence is lacking to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of these products.
Critical Issues:
Level 1 RCT studies are the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment approaches; however, due to differences in surgical techniques, patient demographics, and compliance, standard-of-care (SOC) outcomes in the wound care space can vary significantly between different RCTs, making it difficult to compare them against each other.
Future Directions:
To mitigate variability between different RCTs, wound closure outcomes can be reported as risk ratios (RRs). This review of all the currently published RCTs (with a similar trial design) in patients with DFU and RRs confirms that CAMPs adjunct to SOC result in statistically superior wound closure outcomes in DFUs, when compared with SOC alone, with a RR of 1.72 [1.56, 1.90], p < 0.00001. Enough evidence is still lacking to determine a statistical difference between broad categories of cellular/acellular and amniotic/nonamniotic CAMPs, and hence, decision makers should consider published head-to-head comparative studies, real-world evidence, and cost-effectiveness evidence between individual CAMPs to decide on which to use in practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SuYN, ZhaoDY, LiYH, et al.Human amniotic membrane allograft, A novel treatment for chronic diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int Wound J, 2020; 17(3):753–764.
2.
PaggiaroAO, MenezesAG, FerrassiAD, et al.Biological effects of amniotic membrane on diabetic foot wounds: A systematic review. J Wound Care, 2018; 27(Sup2):S19–S25.
3.
GuoX, MuD, GaoF. Efficacy and safety of acellular dermal matrix in diabetic foot ulcer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg, 2017; 40:1–7.
4.
HaughAM, WittJG, HauchA, et al.Amnion membrane in diabetic foot wounds: A Meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 2017; 5(4):e1302.
5.
WuS, CarterM, ColeW, et al.Best practice for wound repair and regeneration use of cellular, acellular and matrix-like products (CAMPs). J Wound Care, 2023; 32(Sup4b):S1–S31.
6.
SnyderD, SullivanN, MargolisD, et al.Skin Substitutes for Treating Chronic Wounds. Rockville (MD). 2020.
7.
HigginsJP, AltmanDG, GotzschePC, et al.The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011; 343:d5928.
8.
BucherHC, GuyattGH, GriffithLE, et al.The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol, 1997; 50(6):683–691.
9.
LantisJC, SnyderR, ReyzelmanAM, et al.Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix for the closure of diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective randomised controlled trial. J Wound Care, 2021; 30(Sup7):S18–S27.
10.
LulloveEJ, LidenB, WintersC, et al.A multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the effect of Omega-3-Rich Fish skin in the treatment of chronic, nonresponsive diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds, 2021; 33(7):169–177.
11.
SerenaTE, YaakovR, MooreS, et al.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.
12.
LaveryLA, FulmerJ, ShebetkaKA, et al.The efficacy and safety of Grafix((R)) 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.
13.
DiDomenicoLA, OrgillDP, GalianoRD, et al.Use of an aseptically processed, dehydrated human amnion and chorion membrane improves likelihood and rate of healing in chronic diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, randomised, multi-centre clinical trial in 80 patients. Int Wound J, 2018; 15(6):950–957.
14.
TettelbachW, CazzellS, ReyzelmanAM, et al.A confirmatory study on the efficacy of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane dHACM allograft in the management of diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled study of 110 patients from 14 wound clinics. Int Wound J, 2019; 16(1):19–29.
15.
ZelenCM, SerenaTE, GouldL, et al.Treatment of chronic diabetic lower extremity ulcers with advanced therapies: A prospective, randomised, controlled, multi-centre comparative Study examining clinical efficacy and cost. Int Wound J, 2016; 13(2):272–282.
16.
TettelbachW, CazzellS, SigalF, et al.A multicentre prospective randomised controlled comparative parallel study of dehydrated human umbilical cord (EpiCord) allograft for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J, 2019; 16(1):122–130.
17.
EdmondsM, European, Australian apligraf diabetic foot ulcer study G. Apligraf in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 2009; 8(1):11–18.
18.
Tchanque-FossuoCN, DahleSE, Lev-TovH, et al.Cellular versus acellular matrix devices in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: Interim results of a comparative efficacy randomized controlled trial. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2019; 13(8):1430–1437.
19.
UccioliL, GiuratoL, RuotoloV, et al.Two-step autologous grafting using HYAFF scaffolds in treating difficult diabetic foot ulcers: Results of a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial with long-term follow-up. Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 2011; 10(2):80–85.
20.
ArmstrongDG, GalianoRD, OrgillDP, et al.Multi-centre prospective randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate a bioactive split thickness skin allograft vs standard of care in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J, 2022; 19(4):932–944.
21.
AlvarezOM, SmithT, GilbertTW, et al.Diabetic foot ulcers treated with porcine urinary bladder extracellular matrix and total contact cast: Interim analysis of a randomized, controlled trial. Wounds, 2017; 29(5):140–146.
22.
ZelenCM, OrgillDP, SerenaTE, et al.An aseptically processed, acellular, reticular, allogenic human dermis improves healing in diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre follow-up trial. Int Wound J, 2018; 15(5):731–739.
23.
ReyzelmanA, CrewsRT, MooreJC, et al.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.
24.
WaltersJ, CazzellS, PhamH, et al.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:e10.
25.
DriverVR, LaveryLA, ReyzelmanAM, et al.A clinical trial of integra template for diabetic foot ulcer treatment. Wound Repair Regen, 2015; 23(6):891–900.
26.
LantisJ, LulloveE, LidenB, et al.Final efficacy and cost analysis of a fish skin graft vs standard of care in the management of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Wounds, 2023; 35(4):71–79.
27.
CazzellSM, LangeDL, DickersonJEJr, et al.The management of diabetic foot ulcers with porcine small intestine submucosa tri-layer matrix: A randomized controlled trial. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2015; 4(12):711–718.
28.
ArmstrongDG, OrgillDP, GalianoRD, et al.Use of a purified reconstituted bilayer matrix in the management of chronic diabetic foot ulcers improves patient outcomes vs standard of care: Results of a prospective randomised controlled multi-centre clinical trial. Int Wound J, 2022; 19(5):1197–1209.
29.
VevesA, FalangaV, ArmstrongDG, et al.Apligraf Diabetic Foot Ulcer S. 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.
30.
MarstonWA, HanftJ, NorwoodP, et al.Dermagraft diabetic foot ulcer Study G. 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.
31.
NaughtonG, MansbridgeJ, GentzkowG. A metabolically active human dermal replacement for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Artif Organs, 1997; 21(11):1203–1210.
32.
VenkatramanP, AnandS, DeanC, et al.Clinical trials in wound care I: The advantages and limitations of different clinical trial designs. J Wound Care, 2002; 11(3):91–94.
33.
ArmstrongDG, TettelbachWH, ChangTJ, et al.Observed impact of skin substitutes in lower extremity diabetic ulcers: Lessons from the medicare database (2015-2018). J Wound Care, 2021; 30(Sup7):S5–S16.
34.
FrykbergRG, CazzellSM, Arroyo-RiveraJ, et al.Evaluation of tissue engineering products for the management of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: An interim analysis. J Wound Care, 2016; 25(Sup7):S18–S25.
35.
CazzellS, VayserD, PhamH, et al.A randomized clinical trial of a human acellular dermal matrix demonstrated superior healing rates for chronic diabetic foot ulcers over conventional care and an active acellular dermal matrix comparator. Wound Repair Regen, 2017; 25(3):483–497.
36.
AnanianCE, DhillonYS, Van GilsCC, et al.A multicenter, randomized, single-blind trial comparing the efficacy of viable cryopreserved placental membrane to human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Repair Regen, 2018; 26(3):274–283.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
