OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerance and acceptability of Urgotul and DuoDERM E dressings in the local management of venous or mixed-aetiology leg ulcers. METHOD: This was a prospective multicentre randomised phase IV clinical trial conducted open-label in parallel groups. It involved 20 investigating centres, including hospital dermatology and vascular medicine departments, and private practices. Dermatologists and angiologists/phlebologists took part. Subjects were adult, non-immunosuppressed patients presenting with a non-infected, non-malignant leg ulcer of predominantly venous origin (ABPI > 0.8). Ulcers were between 4cm2 and 40cm2 in size, with granulation tissue covering more than 50% of their surface area. Ulcer duration ranged from three to 18 months. Patients were followed-up by the investigating physician for eight weeks on a weekly basis; this included clinical examination, wound area tracings and photographs. Nurses (hospital or visiting) assessed exudate volume and clinical appearance at dressing changes. RESULTS:Ninety-one patients were included: 47 in the Urgotul group and 44 in the DuoDERM E group. Baseline patient demographic data and wound characteristics were comparable in the two groups. After eight weeks of treatment wound surface area had reduced by a mean of 61.3% in the Urgotul group and 52.1% in the DuoDERM E group (NS); dressings were changed more frequently in the DuoDERM E group (2.54 +/- 0.57 times per week versus 2.31 +/- 0.45 in the Urgotul group, p = 0.047). Thirty-three local adverse events were recorded in 27 patients: 10 in the Urgotul group and 23 in the DuoDERM E group (p = 0.039). Nurses reported better acceptability for the Urgotul dressing, based on pain on removal, maceration and odour (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both dressings showed similar efficacy for the local treatment of venous leg ulcers. Nevertheless, medical and nursing staff reported better tolerance and acceptability for the Urgotul dressing.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerance and acceptability of Urgotul and DuoDERM E dressings in the local management of venous or mixed-aetiology leg ulcers. METHOD: This was a prospective multicentre randomised phase IV clinical trial conducted open-label in parallel groups. It involved 20 investigating centres, including hospital dermatology and vascular medicine departments, and private practices. Dermatologists and angiologists/phlebologists took part. Subjects were adult, non-immunosuppressed patients presenting with a non-infected, non-malignant leg ulcer of predominantly venous origin (ABPI > 0.8). Ulcers were between 4cm2 and 40cm2 in size, with granulation tissue covering more than 50% of their surface area. Ulcer duration ranged from three to 18 months. Patients were followed-up by the investigating physician for eight weeks on a weekly basis; this included clinical examination, wound area tracings and photographs. Nurses (hospital or visiting) assessed exudate volume and clinical appearance at dressing changes. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included: 47 in the Urgotul group and 44 in the DuoDERM E group. Baseline patient demographic data and wound characteristics were comparable in the two groups. After eight weeks of treatment wound surface area had reduced by a mean of 61.3% in the Urgotul group and 52.1% in the DuoDERM E group (NS); dressings were changed more frequently in the DuoDERM E group (2.54 +/- 0.57 times per week versus 2.31 +/- 0.45 in the Urgotul group, p = 0.047). Thirty-three local adverse events were recorded in 27 patients: 10 in the Urgotul group and 23 in the DuoDERM E group (p = 0.039). Nurses reported better acceptability for the Urgotul dressing, based on pain on removal, maceration and odour (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both dressings showed similar efficacy for the local treatment of venous leg ulcers. Nevertheless, medical and nursing staff reported better tolerance and acceptability for the Urgotul dressing.
Authors: Gill Norman; Maggie J Westby; Amber D Rithalia; Nikki Stubbs; Marta O Soares; Jo C Dumville Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-06-15