4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of the freeze-dried cultured human keratinocyte lysate, LyphoDerm™ 0.9%, in the treatment of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers

期刊

WOUND REPAIR AND REGENERATION
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 138-147

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1067-1927.2005.130204.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LyphoDerm(TM) (XCELLentis, Belgium) is an end-sterilized, freeze-dried lysate from cultured allogeneic epidermal keratinocytes, formulated into a hydrophilic gel. Its efficacy and safety were evaluated, in combination with standard care (hydrocolloid dressing and compression therapy), in 194 patients suffering from hard-to-heal (lasting more than 6 weeks and not responding to conventional therapy) venous leg ulcers. Two control groups received standard care, with or without vehicle, respectively. Patients had a median age of 67.5 years and the majority were females (61%). The median duration of the ulcer was 43 weeks and in 39% of the subjects it had been present for more than 1 year. Thirty-eight percent of the patients in the standard care + LyphoDerm(TM) group had complete ulcer healing within 24 weeks (primary end point) compared to 27% of patients in the standard care + vehicle pooled groups (P = 0.114) in the as treated intent-to-treat cohort (37% vs. 27% in the as randomized intent-to-treat cohort; p = 0.137). In the subgroup of patients with enlarging ulcers, the difference between the two groups was significant (30% vs. 11%; p = 0.024 in the as treated intent-to-treat cohort and 31% vs. 9%; p = 0.005 in the as randomized intent-to-treat cohort). LyphoDerm(TM) was well tolerated and safe, and no differences in the frequency of adverse events were noted between the treatment groups. Although the primary objective of the study was not achieved, the exploratory analysis carried out in patients with enlarging ulcers suggests that LyphoDerm(TM) could offer a new prospect for the treatment of patients with venous ulcers that may prove to be a significant adjunct to the overall provision of care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据