Abstract
Healing of diabetic foot ulcers is a major challenge. Despite adhering to optimal standard of care (SOC), less than 30% of wounds heal after 20 weeks. Advanced cellular tissue‐based products have shown better healing over SOC, albeit with great cost and modest improvement. We hypothesized no difference in healing effected by either cellular (Dermagraft), noncellular (Oasis) devices, relative to SOC in treating diabetic foot ulcer in a randomized controlled trial. The primary and secondary outcomes were the percentage of subjects that achieved complete wound closure by study endpoint (12 weeks of treatment) and study completion, respectively. During the 2‐week screening phase with SOC, subjects with 40% change in ulcer size were excluded. After randomization, 56 patients entered an active treatment phase (8 weeks) followed by a maintenance phase (4‐week SOC), with endpoint at visit 15, and 4 monthly follow‐up visits. There was equal distribution of demographic data (p>.05) and no difference in initial wound characteristics (p>.05) between all groups. No differences were observed in complete wound closure by 12 and 28 weeks of treatment, nor were there any difference in percentage area reduction from treatment weeks 1 to 12 and from treatment weeks 1 to 28 between the groups. Each of the treatment arms showed statistically significant reduction in wound area from treatment weeks 1 to 28 (p<.05). This exploratory analysis suggests that the outcomes of treatment with either Dermagraft or Oasis matrix are comparable. We have completed enrollment, and the final data analysis is underway to make definitive conclusions.
