A Composite Ovine Forestomach Matrix and Hyaluronic Acid CAMP for the Treatment of Full Thickness Wounds of the Foot in People With Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- Journal
- International wound journal (Q1)
- Published
- 1 October 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- David G Armstrong, Dennis P Orgill, Robert D Galiano, John C Lantis, Paul Glat, Alexander M Reyzelman, et al.
- PMID
- 42823610
- DOI
- 10.1111/iwj.71056
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Dermatology (top studies of the week, 4 October 2026): High-quality evidence in a top journal
Abstract
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a devastating complication of diabetes that markedly affects quality of life and generates significant socioeconomic and healthcare burdens. When DFUs fail to respond to standard of care (SOC), advanced therapies including Cellular, Acellular and Matrix-like Products (CAMPs) are often employed. A novel composite CAMP comprising ovine forestomach matrix and high molecular weight hyaluronic acid, termed 'OFM-HA' has been developed for the treatment of chronic wounds and evaluated in a prospective multi-centre controlled trial. For this trial, 143 subjects were randomized to receive OFM-HA plus SOC or SOC alone for the treatment of chronic full thickness wounds of the foot in people with diabetes meeting prespecified eligibility criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of wounds healed by 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included healing time, percentage area reduction, adverse events and changes in pain and quality of life. For the modified intent-to-treat population, 46% (31/68) of the OFM-HA plus SOC group healed by 12 weeks compared to 24% (17/72) in the SOC alone group (p = 0.008). Kaplan-Meier analysis favoured OFM-HA plus SOC over 12 weeks (log-rank p = 0.023). No unexpected safety-related occurrences were observed. OFM-HA plus SOC increased 12-week closure in this selected population. Interpretation is limited by post-randomization exclusions, differential withdrawal and an adjusted comparison close to the significance threshold (p = 0.045).
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.