...
首页> 外文期刊>Wound repair and regeneration: official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society >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
【24h】

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

机译:将活性冷冻保存胎盘膜与人成纤维细胞衍生的皮肤替代治疗慢性糖尿病足溃疡治疗的多中心,随机的单盲试验比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract 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 2 : 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 2 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.
机译:摘要随机对照临床试验,金标准确定治疗效果免受对照,表现出皮肤替代品的优点,用于治疗慢性糖尿病足溃疡与护理标准相比。然而,随机对照临床试验比较两种或更多种皮肤替代品之间的功效非常有限。随着越来越多的新皮肤替代品,这些研究对于伤口护理提供者和付款人的治疗和决策是必不可少的。在这项研究中,我们分析了可行的冷冻保存胎盘膜(VCPM)和人成纤维细胞衍生的皮肤替代(HFDS)之间的临床结果和产品成本,用于治疗前瞻性,多中心,单盲研究中的慢性糖尿病足溃疡。分析了62名患者的结果:31例VCPM治疗组患者和31例HFDS治疗组。利用非劣效性试验设计和8个申请HFD申请的既定治疗方案,我们证明VCPM不逊有于达到完全伤口闭合的患者比例(9.68,90%CI:[10.67,28.94])。然而,初步调查结果表明,VCPM可能对伤口具有更好的结果?≤α≤≤≤≤x?5cm 2:81.3%(13/16)在HFDS组中的伤口中的伤口中的伤口与达到完整在治疗结束时关闭(p?= 0.0118)。伤口的初步产品成本分析?≤≤≤≤≤≤≤x≤α5cm2可显着节省VCPM治疗的患者的显着节省。对于VCPM和HFDS患者,治疗过程中的平均每患者成本分别为3,846美元和7,968美元(p?&?0.0001)。这些结果可用作伤口护理提供者和付款人的指导。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号