Effect of Cold Atmospheric Plasma Therapy vs Standard Therapy Placebo on Wound Healing in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2020
01 07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
17
7
2020
pubmed:
17
7
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of diabetes and require specialized treatment. Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) has been associated with benefits in wound infection and healing in previous smaller series of case reports. Yet the effect of CAP compared with standard care therapy in wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers remains to be studied. To determine whether the application of CAP accelerates wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers compared with standard care therapy. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, patient-blinded clinical trial was conducted at 2 clinics with recruitment from August 17, 2016, to April 20, 2019. Patients were scheduled to remain in follow-up until April 30, 2024. Patients with diabetes and diabetic foot ulcers described using the combined Wagner-Armstrong classification of 1B or 2B (superficial or infected diabetic foot ulcers extending to tendon) were eligible. A patient could participate with 1 or more wounds in both groups in both intervention and control groups. Wounds were randomized separately, allowing a participant to be treated several times within the study following a 2 × 2 × 2 randomization strata considering sex, smoking status, and age (≤68 years and >68 years). Standard care treatment with 8 applications of either CAP generated from argon gas in an atmospheric pressure plasma jet or 8 applications of placebo treatment in a patient-blinded manner. Primary end points were reduction in wound size, clinical infection, and microbial load compared with treatment start. Secondary end points were time to relevant wound reduction (>10%), reduction of infection, parameters of patient's well-being, and treatment-associated adverse events. Of 65 diabetic foot ulcer wounds from 45 patients assessed for study, 33 wounds from 29 patients were randomized to CAP and 32 wounds from 28 to placebo, with 62 wounds from 43 patients (31 wounds per group) included for final evaluation (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [9.1] years for full sample). Four patients with 5 wounds of 31 (16.1%) wounds in the CAP group and 3 patients with 4 wounds of 31 (13%) wounds in the placebo group were active smokers. CAP therapy yielded a significant increase in wound healing, both in total mean (SD) area reduction (CAP vs placebo relative units, -26.31 [11.72]; P = .03) and mean (SD) time to relevant wound area reduction (CAP vs placebo relative units, 10% from baseline, 1.60 [0.58]; P = .009). Reduction of infection and microbial load was not significantly different between CAP and placebo. No therapy-related adverse events occurred during therapy; patient's perceptions during therapy were comparable. In this randomized clinical trial, CAP therapy resulted in beneficial effects in chronic wound treatment in terms of wound surface reduction and time to wound closure independent from background infection. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04205942.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32672829
pii: 2768340
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.10411
pmc: PMC7366186
doi:
Substances chimiques
Plasma Gases
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04205942']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2010411Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016 Jan;32 Suppl 1:2-6
pubmed: 26409930
Theranostics. 2019 Jan 30;9(4):1066-1084
pubmed: 30867816
J Wound Care. 2010 Apr;19(4):140, 142, 144 passim
pubmed: 20379125
Diabetes Care. 1999 Jan;22(1):157-62
pubmed: 10333919
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Feb 24;114(7):130-136
pubmed: 28302263
Lancet. 2005 Nov 12;366(9498):1719-24
pubmed: 16291066
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013 Mar 13;12:45
pubmed: 23497152
Biomol Ther (Seoul). 2014 Nov;22(6):477-90
pubmed: 25489414
JAMA. 2005 Jan 12;293(2):217-28
pubmed: 15644549
Ann Med. 2017 Mar;49(2):106-116
pubmed: 27585063
Biol Chem. 2018 Dec 19;400(1):19-38
pubmed: 30403650
In Vivo. 2019 Jul-Aug;33(4):1011-1026
pubmed: 31280189
Diabet Med. 2020 Feb;37(2):211-218
pubmed: 31613404
Foot Ankle. 1981 Sep;2(2):64-122
pubmed: 7319435
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2018 Sep;34(6):e3020
pubmed: 29726089
Lancet. 2005 Nov 12;366(9498):1736-43
pubmed: 16291068
Diabetes Care. 1998 May;21(5):855-9
pubmed: 9589255
PLoS One. 2016 May 25;11(5):e0155427
pubmed: 27224027
J Hosp Infect. 2012 Jul;81(3):177-83
pubmed: 22682918
J Appl Microbiol. 2017 Aug;123(2):308-324
pubmed: 28245092
Wound Repair Regen. 2008 Jan-Feb;16(1):19-22
pubmed: 18211575
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2004 May-Jun;20 Suppl 1:S78-89
pubmed: 15150819
Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Jun 10;17(6):
pubmed: 27294922