Evaluation of cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs) in the management of nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers: an interim analysis of the STABLECAMP trial.

Authors

  • Thomas E Serena SerenaGroup Inc. Author
  • Brianna Tramelli Author
  • Emily King SerenaGroup Inc. Author
  • Dereck Shi SerenaGroup Inc. Author
  • Madison Dunn SerenaGroup Inc. Author
  • Manisha Mehta GFC of Southeastern Michigan, Detroit, MI Author
  • David Simon Mount Sinai Brooklyn Hospital, Brooklyn, NY Author
  • R Andrew Pavelescu The Foot, Ankle, & Vein Specialists, Venice, FL Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63676/jke3jp86

Keywords:

interim analysis, diabetic foot ulcer, chronic wounds, tissue regeneration, Cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products , clinical trial design

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are chronic wounds associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Current standard of care (SOC) achieves less than optimal healing rates, highlighting the need for novel and cost-effective therapies.

Methods: An interim analysis of this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled modified platform clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of multiple cellular, acellular, and matrix-like prod-ucts (CAMPs) with SOC versus SOC alone. The primary endpoint was percentage of target ulcers achieving complete wound closure in 12 weeks, defined as 100% reepithelialization without drainage for two consecutive weeks, confirmed by blinded independent review.

Results: In Intent-To-Treat (ITT), the dual layer amnion/chorion membrane allograft (DLACG) with SOC arm achieved a 58.3% closure rate versus 13.3% with SOC alone, a 45% absolute gain that was statistically significant (n=12, 95% CI 15.7% to 68.4%, p=0.001, α=0.05). All other treatment groups were not significant in the ITT population. In Per Protocol (PP), analysis of the four-layer amniotic membrane allograft (FLAG) with SOC arm achieved a 63.6% closure rate versus 23.8% with SOC alone, a 39.8% absolute gain that was statistically significant (n=11, 95% CI 4.5% to 64.8%, p=0.027, α=0.05). All other treatment arms were not significant in PP population. Additionally, the percent area reduction (PAR) from TV-1 to TV-13 measured weekly with digital photographic planimetry, using an imaging device, and physical examination were analyzed. For ITT and PP populations, all treatment arms outperformed SOC on average and median wound-area reduction. For PP, demographic summary statistics were analyzed to de-termine randomized baseline balance across groups, which was achieved with no statistically significant differences between groups at the time of interim analysis.

Conclusion: The interim analysis revealed that the placental membranes products trended to-ward superiority over SOC. The statistical significance in the ITT population for DLACG suggests that this product is superior to SOC.

References

1. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th edn. Brussels, Belgium: 2021. https://www.diabetesatlas.org (accessed 25 October 2025)

2. Wu Y, Ding Y, Tanaka Y, Zhang W. Risk factors contributing to type 2 diabetes and recent advances in the treatment and prevention. Int J Med Sci. 2014;11(11):1185-1200. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.10001

3. 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/dci22-00434

4. Game F. Classification of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32 Suppl 1:186-194. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2746

5. Fife CE, Eckert KA, Carter MJ. Publicly reported wound healing rates: the fantasy and the reality. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2018;7(3):77-94. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2017.0743

6. 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

7. Armstrong DG, Swerdlow MA, Armstrong AA, Conte MS, Padula WV, Bus SA. Five year mortality and direct costs of care for people with diabetic foot complications are comparable to cancer. J Foot Ankle Res. 2020;13(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-020-00383-2

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

2025-10-31

How to Cite

Evaluation of cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs) in the management of nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers: an interim analysis of the STABLECAMP trial. (2025). International Journal of Tissue Repair, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.63676/jke3jp86