Apligraf and Dermagraft More Effective for Chronic Wounds

With increased prevalence of chronic wounds and growing number of people with diabetes in the United States, it is vital to promote more advanced wound care treatment. Recently, a report regarding the comparative effectiveness of Apligraf and Dermagraft in treating chronic wounds was presented during the Fall Symposium for Advanced Wound Care (SAWC) annual medical meeting in Las Vegas. When it comes to ‘skin substitute category,’ Apligraf and Dermagraft are the only living cell-based products to have received approval from the FDA for chronic wound healing and the study found them more effective than some other advanced treatments.

The report analyzed the clinical outcomes of Apligraf for the treatment of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers (VLUs), and Dermagraft for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) compared to Epifix, Primatrix and Theraskin. The major focus was on the reduction in healing times for chronic wounds while utilizing Apligraf and Dermagraft products.

Dermagraft versus Epifix for DFU Treatment

This analysis examined the real-world outcomes of 122 DFU patients receiving treatment at 72 wound care centers and the major findings were:

  • The use of Dermagraft had enhanced outcomes compared to Epifix during the treatment of DFUs. There was a significantly higher incidence of wound closure with Dermagraft-treated wounds compared to Epifix-treated wounds.
  • If the median time to closure for Dermagraft-treated wounds was found to be 12 weeks, the median time for Epifix-treated wounds was 19.4 weeks. Thus, wound closure was 38% sooner in the former case.
  • The probability of wound healing with the use of Dermagraft was twice as high as the probability of healing with Epifix.

Dermagraft versus Primatrix for DFU Treatment

This analysis assessed the real-world outcomes in 206 patients with 208 DFUs receiving treatment at 93 wound care centers with either Dermagraft or Primatrix. The major findings were:

  • In real-world settings, Dermagraft was found to be significantly more effective than Primatrix for the treatment of DFUs. When it took 14.6 weeks for Dermagraft-treated wounds to heal, Primatrix- treated wounds took 25 weeks to heal. Thus, Dermagraft-treated wounds healed on an average 42% faster than Primatrix- treated wounds.
  • The use of Dermagraft increased the probability of healing by 77% compared to Primatrix collagen dressing.

Apligraf versus Theraskin for VLU Treatment

This analysis assessed the wound healing times for patients using Apligraf versus Theraskin for treating venous leg ulcers (VLUs). The data for 717 patients with 799 VLUs receiving treatment at 177 wound care centers were examined and here are the major findings:

  • The median time to closure for Apligraf-treated wounds was 52% faster than that of Theraskin-treated wounds (15 weeks versus 31 weeks respectively).
  • The use of Apligraf increased the probability of healing by 97% compared to treatment with Theraskin.

Another comparative effectiveness study followed by these analyses was published in the peer-reviewed Wound Repair & Regeneration, which revealed that the probability of DFU healing increases by 97% when treated with Apligraf compared to Epifix. The study also found that closure of Apligraf-treated DFUs was twice as fast as Epifix-treated DFUs. As the chronic wounds are hard-to-heal and associated with several challenges such as co-morbidity, decreased quality of life and even mortality in some cases, this discovery of improved effectiveness with Apligraf and Dermagraft are very crucial.

However, as a wound care provider, you should capture high-value information for effective treatment with these options. Numerous documentation elements are captured for treating patients with chronic wounds, which are not always available with standard EMR solutions. In every way, a wound EMR is suitable for effective data capture in this scenario, as it captures only wound-related content. The templates dedicated to wound care capture highly specific information about chronic wounds and help wound care physicians take an informed decision on whether Apligraf or Dermagraft treatment is suitable for their patients.