Cargando…

Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seidel, Dörthe, Mathes, Tim, Lefering, Rolf, Storck, Martin, Lawall, Holger, Neugebauer, Edmund A M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25158846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-334
_version_ 1782333768412954624
author Seidel, Dörthe
Mathes, Tim
Lefering, Rolf
Storck, Martin
Lawall, Holger
Neugebauer, Edmund A M
author_facet Seidel, Dörthe
Mathes, Tim
Lefering, Rolf
Storck, Martin
Lawall, Holger
Neugebauer, Edmund A M
author_sort Seidel, Dörthe
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer’s instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs. DISCUSSION: The DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011). German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4156638
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41566382014-09-07 Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Seidel, Dörthe Mathes, Tim Lefering, Rolf Storck, Martin Lawall, Holger Neugebauer, Edmund A M Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: In August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer’s instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs. DISCUSSION: The DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011). German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011). BioMed Central 2014-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4156638/ /pubmed/25158846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-334 Text en © Seidel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Seidel, Dörthe
Mathes, Tim
Lefering, Rolf
Storck, Martin
Lawall, Holger
Neugebauer, Edmund A M
Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156638/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25158846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-334
work_keys_str_mv AT seideldorthe negativepressurewoundtherapyversusstandardwoundcareinchronicdiabeticfootwoundsstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mathestim negativepressurewoundtherapyversusstandardwoundcareinchronicdiabeticfootwoundsstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT leferingrolf negativepressurewoundtherapyversusstandardwoundcareinchronicdiabeticfootwoundsstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT storckmartin negativepressurewoundtherapyversusstandardwoundcareinchronicdiabeticfootwoundsstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT lawallholger negativepressurewoundtherapyversusstandardwoundcareinchronicdiabeticfootwoundsstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT neugebaueredmundam negativepressurewoundtherapyversusstandardwoundcareinchronicdiabeticfootwoundsstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial