Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Dörthe Seidel, Tim Mathes, Rolf Lefering, Martin Storck, Holger Lawall, Edmund A M Neugebauer, Dörthe Seidel, Tim Mathes, Rolf Lefering, Martin Storck, Holger Lawall, Edmund A M Neugebauer

Abstract

Background: In August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment.

Methods/design: The DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer's instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs.

Discussion: The DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011).German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Stratification of DiaFu study participants according to Wagner-Armstrong classification. Participants of the DiaFu study are stratified by study center and by Wagner-Armstrong stage within each center (Group 1: <Wagner-Armstrong stage 2C and Group 2: ≥Wagner-Armstrong stage 2C). The table shows the modified Wagner-Armstrong classification scheme. Strata-Group 1 is marked blue and Strata-Group 2 is marked red.
Figure 2
Figure 2
DiaFu study sites. Recruitment of study patients is performed in hospitals and outpatient facilities across Germany with a specific qualification for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot wounds. The table lists all study sites ready for patient recruitment as of 25 October 2013.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the DiaFu study. The table shows the required diagnosis and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for DiaFu participants.

References

    1. Diabetes: The Cost Of Diabetes []
    1. IDF Diabetes Atlas - Prevalence []
    1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1047–1053. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047.
    1. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Nelson EA, Lorimer K, Fisher A. Prevalence of lowerlimb ulceration: a systematic review of prevalence studies. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2003;16:305–316. doi: 10.1097/00129334-200311000-00013.
    1. Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT, Goossens A, de Vos R, Legemate DA. Systematic review of dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Br J Surg. 2005;92:665–672. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5055.
    1. Rüttermann M, Maier-Hasselmann A, Nink-Grebe B, Burckhardt M. Local treatment of chronic wounds. in patients with peripheral vascular disease, chronic venous insufficiency, and diabetes. Dtsch Arztebl International. 2013;110:25–31.
    1. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:563–576. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199706000-00002.
    1. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:553–562. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199706000-00001.
    1. Morykwas MJ, Faler BJ, Pearce DJ, Argenta LC. Effects of varying levels of subatmospheric pressure on the rate of granulation tissue formation in experimental wounds in swine. Ann Plast Surg. 2001;47:547–551. doi: 10.1097/00000637-200111000-00013.
    1. IQWiG: Vakuumversiegelungstherapie von Wunden. Abschlussbericht N04–03. []: Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG); 2006
    1. IQWiG: Vakuumversiegelungstherapie von Wunden -Rapid Report- N06–02. [] Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG); 2007
    1. Gregor S, Maegele M, Sauerland S, Krahn JF, Peinemann F, Lange S. Negative pressure wound therapy: a vacuum of evidence? Arch Surg. 2008;143:189–196. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2007.54.
    1. Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ, Evans D, Land L, Vermeulen H. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds; p. CD001898.
    1. Peinemann F, Sauerland S. Negative-pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:381–389.
    1. Dumville JC, Hinchliffe RJ, Cullum N, Game F, Stubbs N, Sweeting M, Peinemann F. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD010318.
    1. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1704–1710. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67695-7.
    1. Blume Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:631–636. doi: 10.2337/dc07-2196.
    1. The ‘Chronic’ Wound Debate []
    1. Food and Drug Administration: GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY. Chronic Cutaneous Ulcer And Burn Wounds—Developing Products For Treatment. []
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner