Neal Foman

Advanced Wound Care Therapies for Nonhealing Diabetic, Venous, and Arterial Ulcers: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Nonhealing ulcers affect patient quality of life and impose a substantial financial burden on the health care system. PURPOSE To systematically evaluate benefits and harms of advanced wound care therapies for nonhealing diabetic, venous, and arterial ulcers. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE (1995 to June 2013), the Cochrane Library, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION English-language randomized trials reporting ulcer healing or time to complete healing in adults with nonhealing ulcers treated with advanced therapies. DATA EXTRACTION Study characteristics, outcomes, adverse events, study quality, and strength of evidence were extracted by trained researchers and confirmed by the principal investigator. DATA SYNTHESIS For diabetic ulcers, 35 trials (9 therapies) met eligibility criteria. There was moderate-strength evidence for improved healing with a biological skin equivalent (relative risk [RR], 1.58 [95% CI, 1.20 to 2.08]) and negative pressure wound therapy (RR, 1.49 [CI, 1.11 to 2.01]) compared with standard care and low-strength evidence for platelet-derived growth factors and silver cream compared with standard care. For venous ulcers, 20 trials (9 therapies) met eligibility criteria. There was moderate-strength evidence for improved healing with keratinocyte therapy (RR, 1.57 [CI, 1.16 to 2.11]) compared with standard care and low-strength evidence for biological dressing and a biological skin equivalent compared with standard care. One small trial of arterial ulcers reported improved healing with a biological skin equivalent compared with standard care. Overall, strength of evidence was low for ulcer healing and low or insufficient for time to complete healing. LIMITATIONS Only studies of products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were reviewed. Studies were predominantly of fair or poor quality. Few trials compared 2 advanced therapies. CONCLUSION Compared with standard care, some advanced wound care therapies may improve the proportion of ulcers healed and reduce time to healing, although evidence is limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Primary cutaneous apocrine carcinoma presenting as carcinoma erysipeloides.

1 Smith F. The molecular genetics of keratin disorders. Am J Clin Dermatol 2003; 4:347–64. 2 Lane EB, McLean WHI. Keratins and skin disorders. J Pathol 2004; 204:355–66. 3 Ishida-Yamamoto A, McGrath JA, Judge MR et al. Selective involvement of keratins K1 and K10 in the cytoskeletal abnormality of epidermolytic hyperkeratosis (bullous congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma). J Invest Dermatol 1992; 99:19–26. 4 Rothnagel JA, Traupe H, Wojcik S et al. Mutations in the rod domain of keratin 2e in patients with ichthyosis bullosa of Siemens. Nat Genet 1994; 7:485–90. 5 Kremer H, Zeeuwen P, McLean WHI et al. Ichthyosis bullosa of Siemens is caused by mutations in the keratin 2e gene. J Invest Dermatol 1994; 103:286–9. 6 McLean WHI, Morley SM, Lane EB et al. Ichthyosis bullosa of Siemens – a disease involving keratin 2e. J Invest Dermatol 1994; 103:277–81. 7 Akiyama M, Tsuji-Abe Y, Yanagihara M et al. Ichthyosis bullosa of Siemens: its correct diagnosis facilitated by molecular genetic testing. Br J Dermatol 2005; 152:1353–6. 8 Traupe H, Kolde G, Hamm H, Happle R. Ichthyosis bullosa of Siemens: a unique type of epidermolytic hyperkeratosis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1986; 14:1000–5. 9 Yang JM, Nam K, Kim HC et al. A novel glutamic acid to aspartic acid mutation of the 2B rod domain in the keratin 1 chain in epidermolytic hyperkeratosis. J Invest Dermatol 1999; 112:376–9. 10 Sun XK, Ma LL, Xie YQ et al. Keratin 1 and keratin 10 mutations causing epidermolytic hyperkeratosis in Chinese patient. J Dermatol Sci 2002; 29:195–200.