Randomized controlled clinical trials, the gold standard to determine treatment efficacy against control, have demonstrated advantages of skin substitutes for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers in comparison to standard of care. However, randomized controlled clinical trials comparing efficacy between two or more skin substitutes are very limited. With growing numbers of new skin substitutes, such studies are essential for treatment and policy-making decisions by wound care providers and payers. In this study, we analyzed clinical outcomes and product cost between a viable cryopreserved placental membrane (vCPM) and a human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute (hFDS) for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers in a prospective, multicenter, single-blind study. The outcomes of 62 patients were analyzed: 31 patients in the vCPM treatment group and 31 patients in the hFDS treatment group. Utilizing a non-inferiority trial design and the established treatment regimen of 8 applications for hFDS, we demonstrated that vCPM was not inferior to hFDS for the proportion of patients achieving complete wound closure (9.68, 90% CI: [10.67, 28.94]). However, preliminary findings show that vCPM may have better outcomes for wounds ≤ 5 cm : 81.3% (13/16) of wounds in the vCPM group vs. 37.5% (6/16) of wounds in the hFDS group reached complete closure at the end of treatment (p = 0.0118). A preliminary product cost analysis for wounds ≤ 5 cm may show significant savings for patients treated with vCPM. Average per-patient costs during the course of treatment were $3,846 and $7,968 (p < 0.0001) for vCPM and hFDS patients, respectively. These results may be used as guidance to wound care providers and payers.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of lyopreserved placental membrane containing viable cells (vLPM) in the treatment of nonhealing wounds of various etiologies, and to compare them to those previously reported for cryopreserved placental membrane containing viable cells (vCPM). Approach: Patients with nonhealing wounds who qualified to receive advanced wound therapies were consecutively enrolled and treated weekly with vLPM plus standard of care (SOC) at five centers. Data were de-identified and retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included closure, time to closure, number of vLPM applications, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Seventy-eight patients with 98 wounds (41 diabetic foot ulcers [DFUs], 19 venous leg ulcers [VLUs], 10 surgical, and 28 others) with an average size of 13.3 cm 2 and 8.7 months duration were treated. Fifty-eight of the 98 wounds (59.2%) achieved complete closure with median time to closure of 63 days and 6 vLPM applications. The closure by wound etiology was 63% for DFUs, 47% for VLUs, 70% for surgical wounds, and 57% for other types of wounds. Similar closure rates have been previously demonstrated for vCPM. Wound duration was the main predictor of closure: 65.8% versus 30.0% (p = 0.004) closure was achieved for wounds of £12 and >12 months duration, respectively. There were no AEs related to vLPM application. Innovation: This is the first multicenter case series evaluating the clinical outcomes of vLPM in a real-world setting. Conclusion: These results support clinical equivalency between the two placental membrane formulations with the added convenience of room-temperature storage for vLPM, allowing it to be used in any wound-care setting.

Key Clinical Message This case report describes management of a chronic radiation wound in a patient with multiple comorbidities using a lyopreserved placental membrane containing viable cells (vLPM). Positive outcomes suggest that vLPM provides a good conservative management option for patients with compromised wound healing due to radiation and comorbidities.

No abstract

Reconstructive methods are most commonly used to treat scalp defects. However, patients with complex defects are often not good candidates for surgical procedures due to the severity of the wound, advanced patient age, and multiple comorbidities. In these instances, alternative nonsurgical advanced therapies should be considered.