Effectiveness and safety of topical autologous platelet-rich fibrin membrane with total contact cast versus perilesional injectable autologous platelet-rich plasma therapy with total contact cast in trophic ulcer due to leprosy: A randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

Introduction With a vision of a 90% reduction of grade 2 disability (G2D) in the Global Leprosy Strategy by 2030, the management of trophic ulcer, a common G2D, has become a priority. Autologous injectable perilesional platelet rich plasma (PRP) is first generation, whereas autologous platelet rich fibrin membrane (PRFM) is second generation platelet concentrate helping in trophic ulcer healing by providing growth factors and cytokines. PRFM requires less amount of blood (8 mL) against 20 mL in PRP. Objectives Evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PRFM with total contact cast versus PRP with total contact cast in leprosy trophic ulcer. Methods Observer-blind, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial recruited clinically diagnosed leprosy trophic ulcer with wound area measurement <40 cm2 after obtaining informed consent. Calculated sample size was 26 per group considering the percentage success in the control group (PRP) 39.29% and the experimental group (PRFM) 55.55%, 5% significance-level, 80% power, non-inferiority limit 10%, and 10% drop-out rate. Randomisation was done by computer generated random number table and allocation concealment by sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelope (SNOSE) technique. PRP was prepared with first spin 1,600 rpm for 10 minutes and second spin 4,000 rpm for 10 minutes. PRFM was prepared by centrifugation at 2,600 rpm for 3 minutes. Four treatment sessions followed by two follow-ups at 2 weekly intervals were conducted. Results Baseline clinico-demographic profile was similar in both groups. The surface area was significantly reduced (Friedman's ANOVA P<0.001) in both PRP (from 422.48+657.30 sq cm to 247.84+635.96 sq cm) and PRFM (290.04+281.42 sq cm to 152.77+336.09 sq cm) with significant reduction from first FU onwards in both groups (Post-Hoc Dunn's test P<0.001). Complete improvement was noted in 12% of PRP and 23% of PRFM (Fischer's test P=0.465). Both groups showed improvement in DLQI. Limitations Short duration of treatment and follow-up (10 weeks). Conclusion PRFM with total contact cast is not inferior to PRP. Because of operational ease (less blood, less time), PRFM is a better alternative to PRP.