Intra-individual difference in time to wound closure between wound halves, either treated with Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing or treated with non-adhesive wound dressing only. Independent experts were blind to treatment and assessed efficacy based on chronological series of cropped and coded photographs by wound half that were taken before start of treatment, during wound dressing changes and at the end of treatment. Difference in time to wound closure was calculated for every individual participant as [time taken for wound half treated with Oleogel-S10 to close] - [time taken for wound half treated with non-adhesive wound dressing to close], i.e., results below 0 indicate earlier wound closure of Oleogel-S10 treatment. The overall mean difference in time to wound closure was calculated based on all mean differences in time to wound closure of individual participants. Hence, primary outcome data derived from mean difference in time to wound closure by participant.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included all participants who were treated at least once with study medication, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10.

Time from surgery until wound closure is achieved, separately for wound halves treated with Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing vs. non-adhesive wound dressing only. While outcome measure 1 (intra-individual difference in time to wound closure) was calculated based on mean intra-individual difference in time to wound closure in 107 participants with missing values replaced by a value of 0, for outcome measure 2 missing values were not replaced. For 5 of the 107 wounds data were missing, thus the reported values are calculated from 102 STSG donor site wound halves by intervention (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing vs. non-adhesive wound dressing only).

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included all participants who were treated at least once with study medication, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 and who had signed an informed consent form. For 5 of the 107 wounds, data were missing, thus the reported values are calculated from 102 STSG donor site wound halves by intervention

Percentage of participants with earlier healing of wound area treated with Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing compared to non-adhesive wound dressing only

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included all participants who were treated at least once with study medication, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 and who had signed an informed consent form.

For separate time points (Day 7, Day 10, Day 14, Day 18, Day 21, and Day 28), the frequencies of wound areas which have reached wound closure were calculated.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included all participants who were treated at least once with study medication, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 and who had signed an informed consent form. Data were missing for n=5 participants at all time points.

A study team member assessed the progress of wound healing by treatment regimen and noted the degree of epithelialization (expressed in percent of the original wound size) at wound dressing changes on Day 7, Day 10, Day 14, Day 18, Day 21, and Day 28.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included all participants who were treated at least once with study medication, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 and who had signed an informed consent form. Data were missing for n=1 participant at all time points.

Participants and investigators were asked to grade the efficacy of Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing versus non-adhesive wound dressing only on a 5-point Likert scale (treatment with Oleogel-S10 is much more effective, treatment with Oleogel-S10 is more effective, both treatments have the same efficacy, non-adhesive wound dressing only is more effective, non-adhesive wound dressing only is much more effective).

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included all participants who were treated at least once with study medication, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 and who had signed an informed consent form.

Blinded photographic evaluation which wound half resembles more closely the surrounding skin with regard to texture, redness, growth of hair, and pigmentation.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population included 87 participants for the 3-months follow-up and 83 participants for the 12-months follow-up.

Participants and investigators were asked to evaluate the tolerability of Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing versus non-adhesive wound dressing only (standard of care) on a 5-point Likert scale (treatment with Oleogel-S10 is much better tolerated, treatment with Oleogel-S10 is better tolerated, both treatments are equally well tolerated, standard of care is better tolerated, standard of care is much better tolerated).

The safety analysis population (SAF) included all participants who received treatment at least once, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 or standard of care (SOC). If the application of any treatment was uncertain, the participant was included in the SAF.

Systemic presence/concentration of betulin in blood plasma samples. Plasma samples were collected in weekly intervals and at the end of treatment (when wound closure was achieved or at Day 28). Samples were analysed in a central laboratory with a validated LC-MS/MS method with a lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 1 ng/mL.

The safety analysis population included all participants who received treatment at least once, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 or standard of care (SOC). If the application of any treatment was uncertain, the participant was included in the SAF.

Systemic presence/concentration of betulin in blood plasma samples - values for the number of samples with measurable values in samples above the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 1 ng/mL

A total of 5 participants had a total of 5 samples with betulin concentrations above the LLOQ (1 ng/mL)

The safety analysis population included all participants who received treatment at least once, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 or standard of care (SOC). If the application of any treatment was uncertain, the participant was included in the SAF.

Adverse Events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) as being mild (NCI CTCAE Grade 1), moderate (NCI CTCAE Grade 2), severe (NCI CTCAE Grade 3), life-threatening (NCI CTCAE Grade 4) or death (NCI CTCAE Grade 5).

The safety analysis population included all participants who received treatment at least once, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 or standard of care (SOC). If the application of any treatment was uncertain, the participant was included in the SAF.

Adverse events were assessed as being 'unlikely', 'possibly' or 'probably' related to study medication, 'not related' to study medication or the relationship to study medication was rated as 'unknown'.

The safety analysis population included all participants who received treatment at least once, i.e. who received any dose of Oleogel-S10 or standard of care (SOC). If the application of any treatment was uncertain, the participant was included in the SAF.