Systematic Review of Cellular, Acellular, and Matrix-like Products and Indirect Treatment Comparison Between Cellular/Acellular and Amniotic/Nonamniotic Grafts in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant review focuses on the efficacy of cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs) in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although CAMPs have been incorporated into the clinical algorithm for chronic wounds, evidence is lacking to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of these products. Level 1 RCT studies are the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment approaches; however, due to differences in surgical techniques, patient demographics, and compliance, standard-of-care (SOC) outcomes in the wound care space can vary significantly between different RCTs, making it difficult to compare them against each other. To mitigate variability between different RCTs, wound closure outcomes can be reported as risk ratios (RRs). This review of all the currently published RCTs (with a similar trial design) in patients with DFU and RRs confirms that CAMPs adjunct to SOC result in statistically superior wound closure outcomes in DFUs, when compared with SOC alone, with a RR of 1.72 [1.56, 1.90], < 0.00001. Enough evidence is still lacking to determine a statistical difference between broad categories of cellular/acellular and amniotic/nonamniotic CAMPs, and hence, decision makers should consider published head-to-head comparative studies, real-world evidence, and cost-effectiveness evidence between individual CAMPs to decide on which to use in practice.