A phase 3b, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, expanded-access study of the safety and clinical outcomes of StrataGraft® treatment in adults with deep partial-thickness thermal burns.

BACKGROUND: A phase 3b, open-label, multicenter, expanded-access study (NCT04123548) evaluated safety and clinical outcomes of StrataGraft treatment in adults with deep partial-thickness thermal burns with intact dermal elements. METHODS: Adult patients with 3 % to < 50 % total body surface area burns were treated with a single application of ≤ 1:1 meshed StrataGraft and followed for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was count and percentage of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary endpoints included confirmed wound closure (WC) at Week 12, durable WC at Week 24, time to WC, scar evaluation, and wound infection-related events. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with 96 treatment sites were enrolled. Pruritus was the most common TEAE (22 patients [42.3 %]). Twenty serious TEAEs occurred in 10 patients (19.2 %); none were related to StrataGraft. There were 4 (7.7 %) deaths (aspiration, myocardial infarction, self-injury, Gram-negative rod sepsis); none were related to StrataGraft. Confirmed WC was achieved by Week 12 in 33 patients (63.5 %; 95 % CI: 50.4-76.5 %) and 69 treatment sites (71.9 %; 95 % CI: 62.9-80.9 %). Durable WC was achieved by Week 24 in 29 patients (55.8 %; 95 % CI: 42.3-69.3 %) and 58 treatment sites (60.4 %; 95 % CI: 50.6-70.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: StrataGraft demonstrated clinical benefit. Safety data were consistent with previously reported findings.

Pooled safety analysis of STRATA2011 and STRATA2016 clinical trials evaluating the use of StrataGraft® in patients with deep partial-thickness thermal burns.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis includes pooled safety data from 2 clinical trials (NCT01437852; NCT03005106) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of StrataGraft in patients with deep partial-thickness (DPT) burns. METHODS: The study enrolled 101 adult patients with thermal burns covering 3-49% of total body surface area. Patients were followed for up to 1 year. The pooled safety events included: adverse events (AEs), adverse reactions (ARs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuation, and deaths; immunological responses (reactivity to panel reactive antibodies [PRA] and human leukocyte antigen [HLA] class 1 alleles); and persistence of allogeneic DNA from StrataGraft. RESULTS: Eighty-seven (86.1%) patients experienced 397 AEs. Thirty patients (29.7%) experienced ARs; 16 patients (15.8%) experienced SAEs. The most frequent AEs were pruritus (n = 31; 30.7%), and blister, hypertension, and hypertrophic scar (n = 11 each; 10.9%); the most common AR was pruritus (n = 13; 12.9%). One patient discontinued the study; 2 patients experienced SAEs (unrelated to StrataGraft) leading to death. PRA and HLA allele reactivity was ≤ 25% at Month 3, with no persistent allogeneic DNA from StrataGraft. CONCLUSIONS: StrataGraft was well tolerated by patients, with a safety profile similar to autograft. StrataGraft may offer a safe alternative to autograft for DPT burns.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Evaluation of the Use of Dehydrated Amniotic Membrane Allograft Compared to Standard of Care for the Closure of Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcer.

UNLABELLED: Delayed closure of foot ulcers is a primary factor leading to lower extremity amputation in patients with diabetes, creating great demand for products or therapies to accelerate the rate of wound closure in this population. This study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02209051) was designed to evaluate dehydrated amniotic membrane allograft (DAMA) (AMNIOEXCEL, Derma Sciences Inc, Princeton, NJ) plus standard of care (SOC) compared to SOC alone for the closure of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomized, parallel group trial was implemented at 8 clinical sites in the United States. Eligibility criteria included adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus who have 1 or more ulcers with a Wagner classification of grade 1 or superficial 2 measuring between 1 cm2 and 25 cm2 in area, presenting for more than 1 month with no signs of infection/osteomyelitis; ABI > 0.7; HbA1c Less than 12%; and serum creatinine less than 3.0 mg/dL. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive either SOC alone (n = 14) or DAMA+SOC (n = 15) until wound closure or 6 weeks, whichever occurred first. The endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete wound closure (defined as complete reepithelialization without drainage or need for dressings). RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of subjects in the DAMA+SOC cohort achieved complete wound closure at or before week 6, compared with 0% of the SOC alone cohort (intent-to-treat population, P = 0.017). There was a more robust response noted in the per protocol population, with 45.5% of subjects in the DAMA+SOC cohort achieving complete wound closure, while 0% of SOC-alone subjects achieved complete closure (P = 0.0083). No treatment-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The results suggest DAMA is safe and effective in the management of DFUs, but additional research is needed.