A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled modified multi-platform (matriarch) trial evaluating several cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs) and standard of care versus standard of care alone in the management of non-healing diabetic foot and venous leg ulcers (STABLECAMP)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63676/3csvta73Keywords:
Cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products , Clinical trial protocol, Foot ulcer, diabetic, skin substitutesAbstract
Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of adjunct use of several cellular, acellular and matrix-like products (CAMPs) with standard of care (SOC), compared to SOC alone in the treatment of nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) or venous leg ulcers (VLUs) using a novel modified platform trial design.
Methods: This is a multicentre, prospective, randomized controlled trial utilizing a modified platform design. Patients with non-healing DFUs or VLUs will be randomized into two groups: SOC alone or SOC plus several CAMPs; initial design is for up to 5 CAMPs per wound type, but the modified trial design can include additional CAMPs. The primary endpoint is complete wound closure within 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include time to closure, percentage area reduction (PAR), patient-reported pain, adverse events, and quality of life, as measured by the Forgotten Wound Score and the Wound Quality of Life questionnaire. Exploratory objectives include assessment of offloading compliance and the proportion of subjects aged ≥65 years achieving complete wound closure.
Results: The results will be reported following trial completion. Pooled results for DFUs and VLUs will be published separately, with a master publication for all pooled treatment arms vs pooled SOC arms.
Conclusion: This trial is expected to provide high-quality efficacy data on several CAMPs used in addition to SOC and contribute to evidence-based practice in DFU and VLU management. The modified platform design offers a flexible and efficient approach to evaluating multiple interventions within a single clinical trial.
References
Carter MJ, DaVanzo J, Haught R, Nusgart M, Cartwright D, Fife CE. Chronic wound prevalence and the associated cost of treatment in Medicare beneficiaries: changes between 2014 and 2019. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):894-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2232256
Werdin F, Tennenhaus M, Schaller HE, Rennekampff HO. Evidence-based management strategies for treatment of chronic wounds. Eplasty. 2009;9:e19.
International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th edn. Brussels, Belgium: 2021. https://www.diabetesatlas.org
Margolis DJ, Malay DS, Hoffstad OJ, et al. Incidence of diabetic foot ulcer and lower extremity amputation among Medicare beneficiaries, 2006 to 2008. 2011 Feb 17. In: Data Points Publication Series. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011-. Data Points #2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK65149/
Everett E, Mathioudakis N. Update on management of diabetic foot ulcers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1411(1):153-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13569
McDermott K, Fang M, Boulton AJM, Selvin E, Hicks CW. Etiology, epidemiology, and disparities in the burden of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(1):209-221. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci22-0043
Game F. Classification of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32 Suppl 1:186-194. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2746
Lim JZ, Ng NS, Thomas C. Prevention and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J R Soc Med. 2017;110(3):104-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816688346
Carter MJ, DaVanzo J, Haught R, Nusgart M, Cartwright D, Fife CE. Chronic wound prevalence and the associated cost of treatment in Medicare beneficiaries: changes between 2014 and 2019. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):894-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2232256
Armstrong DG, Kanda VA, Lavery LA, Marston W, Mills JL Sr, Boulton AJ. Mind the gap: disparity between research funding and costs of care for diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):1815-1817. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-2285
Sierra-Juárez MA, Rejón-Cauich JE, Parada-Guzmán MG, Castañeda-Morales SA. Chronic venous disease: Literature review. Revista Médica Del Hospital General de México. 2021; 84(2). https://doi.org/10.24875/hgmx.20000072
Raffetto JD, Ligi D, Maniscalco R, Khalil RA, Mannello F. Why venous leg ulcers have difficulty healing: overview on pathophysiology, clinical consequences, and treatment. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):29. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010029
Melikian R, O'Donnell TF Jr, Suarez L, Iafrati MD. Risk factors associated with the venous leg ulcer that fails to heal after 1 year of treatment. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019;7(1):98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.07.014
Harrison MB, Graham ID, Friedberg E, Lorimer K, Vandevelde-Coke S. Regional planning study. Assessing the population with leg and foot ulcers. Can Nurse. 2001;97(2):18-23.
Abbade LP, Lastória S, de Almeida Rollo H, Stolf HO. A sociodemographic, clinical study of patients with venous ulcer. Int J Dermatol. 2005;44(12):989-992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2004.02276.x
Ha JH, Jin H, Park JU. Association between socioeconomic position and diabetic foot ulcer outcomes: a population-based cohort study in South Korea. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1395. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11406-3
Kolluri R, Lugli M, Villalba L, et al. An estimate of the economic burden of venous leg ulcers associated with deep venous disease. Vasc Med. 2022;27(1):63-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X211028298
Wu S, Carter M, Cole W, 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. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2023.32.Sup4b.S1
Published
Data Availability Statement
Data is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Tissue Repair
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
