Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

Dressings and topical agents containing hyaluronic acid for chronic wound healing

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid is synthesised in plasma membranes and can be found in extracellular tissues. It has been suggested that the application of hyaluronic acid to chronic wounds may promote healing, and the mechanism may be due to its ability to maintain a moist wound environment which helps cell migration in the wound bed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of hyaluronic acid (and its derivatives) on the healing of chronic wounds.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of hyaluronic acid (as a dressing or topical agent) with other dressings on the healing of pressure, venous, arterial, or mixed-aetiology ulcers and foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials (13 articles) in a qualitative synthesis, and were able to combine data from four trials in a quantitative analysis. Overall, the included trials involved 1108 participants (mean age 69.60 years) presenting 178 pressure ulcers, 54 diabetic foot ulcers, and 896 leg ulcers. Sex was reported for 1022 participants (57.24% female). Pressure ulcers It is uncertain whether there is a difference in complete healing (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 2.35); change in ulcer size (mean difference (MD) 25.60, 95% CI 6.18 to 45.02); or adverse events (none reported) between platelet-rich growth factor (PRGF) + hyaluronic acid and PRGF because the certainty of evidence is very low (1 trial, 65 participants). It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in complete healing between lysine hyaluronate and sodium hyaluronate because the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.83; 1 trial, 14 ulcers from 10 participants). Foot ulcers in people with diabetes It is uncertain whether there is a difference in time to complete healing between hyaluronic acid and lyophilised collagen because the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 16.60, 95% CI 7.95 to 25.25; 1 study, 20 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in complete ulcer healing (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.97; 1 study, 34 participants) or change in ulcer size (MD -0.80, 95% CI -3.58 to 1.98; 1 study, 25 participants) between hyaluronic acid and conventional dressings because the certainty of evidence is very low. Leg ulcers We are uncertain whether there is a difference in complete wound healing (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.76), percentage of adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.80), pain (MD 2.10, 95% CI -5.81 to 10.01), or change in ulcer size (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 4.82) between hyaluronic acid + hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid because the certainty of evidence is very low (1 study, 125 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in change in ulcer size between hyaluronic acid and hydrocolloid because the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.25; 1 study, 143 participants). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in complete wound healing between hyaluronic acid and paraffin gauze because the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.23; 1 study, 24 ulcers from 17 participants). When compared with neutral vehicle, hyaluronic acid probably improves complete ulcer healing (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.07; 4 studies, 526 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may slightly increase the reduction in pain from baseline (MD -8.55, 95% CI -14.77 to -2.34; 3 studies, 337 participants); and may slightly increase change in ulcer size, measured as mean reduction from baseline to 45 days (MD 30.44%, 95% CI 15.57 to 45.31; 2 studies, 190 participants). It is uncertain if hyaluronic acid alters incidence of infection when compared with neutral vehicle (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49; 3 studies, 425 participants). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in change in ulcer size (cm2) between hyaluronic acid and dextranomer because the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 5.80, 95% CI -10.0 to 21.60; 1 study, 50 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to risk of bias or imprecision, or both, for all of the above comparisons. No trial reported health-related quality of life or wound recurrence. Measurement of change in ulcer size was not homogeneous among studies, and missing data precluded further analysis for some comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid dressings in the healing of pressure ulcers or foot ulcers in people with diabetes. We found evidence that hyaluronic acid probably improves complete ulcer healing and may slightly decrease pain and increase change in ulcer size when compared with neutral vehicle. Future research into the effects of hyaluronic acid in the healing of chronic wounds should consider higher sample size and blinding to minimise bias and improve the quality of evidence.

Should video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy be used for adults undergoing endotracheal intubation in the pre-hospital setting? A critical appraisal of a systematic review

The safety and utility of endotracheal intubation by paramedics in the United Kingdom is a matter of debate. Considering the controversy surrounding the safety of paramedic-performed endotracheal intubation, any interventions that enhance patient safety should be evaluated for implementation based on solid evidence of their effectiveness. A systematic review performed by Hansel and colleagues (2022) sought to assess compare video laryngoscopes against direct laryngoscopes in clinical practice. This commentary aims to critically appraise the methods used within the review by Hansel et al (2022) and expand upon the findings in the context of clinical practice.

Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Background

Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%–34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted.

Objectives

Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes?

Study eligibility criteria

All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control.

Data sources

Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science.

Participants and interventions

Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control.

Main Outcomes

Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost.

Study selection and analysis

Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis.

Results

10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes.

Limitations

The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence.

Discussion/Conclusion

Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU.

Implications

Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs.

Assessment of Simple Bedside Wound Characteristics for a Prediction Model for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based learning systems built on prediction models can support wound care community nurses (WCCNs) during diabetic foot ulcer care sessions. Several prediction models in the area of diabetic foot ulcer healing have been developed, most built on cardiovascular measurement data. Two other data types are patient information (i.e. sex and hemoglobin A1c) and wound characteristics (i.e. wound area and wound duration); these data relate to the status of the diabetic foot ulcer and are easily accessible for WCCNs. The aim of the study was to assess simple bedside wound characteristics for a prediction model for diabetic foot ulcer outcomes.

METHOD

Twenty predictor variables were tested. A pattern prediction model was used to forecast whether a given diabetic foot ulcer would (i) increase in size (or not) or (ii) decrease in size. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) in a receiver-operating characteristics curve were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 162 diabetic foot ulcers were included. In combination, the predictor variables necrosis, wound size, granulation, fibrin, dry skin, and age were most informative, in total an AUC of 0.77.

CONCLUSIONS

Wound characteristics have potential to predict wound outcome. Future research should investigate implementation of the prediction model in an evidence-based learning system.

Management of infected diabetic wound: a scoping review of guidelines

Background: Various international guidelines and recommendations are available for management of diabetic foot infections. We present a review of the guidelines and recommendations for management of these infections.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, DARE, and national health bodies. Based on the review of fifteen documents, we present details on the importance of suspecting and diagnosing skin, superficial infections, and bone infections in diabetics.

Results: The guidelines recommend classifying the infections based on severity to guide the treatment. While antibiotics have shown the best results, other treatments like hyperbaric oxygen therapy and negative wound pressure have been debated. It is suggested that a team of specialists should be in-charge of managing the infected wounds. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2012 guidelines are widely followed world-over. All guidelines and reviews have consistent suggestions on the assessment of the severity of infection, diagnosis, start, selection, and duration of antibiotic therapy.

Conclusions: It is reasonable to conclude that the IDSA 2012 guidelines are commonly followed across the world. There is a consensus among the Australian guidelines, Canadian guidelines, IDSA 2012, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2015, and International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) 2016 guidelines on the management of infected wounds for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus (DM) are a common and serious global health issue. People with DM are prone to developing foot ulcers and, if these do not heal, they may also undergo foot amputation surgery resulting in postoperative wounds. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a technology that is currently used widely in wound care. NPWT involves the application of a wound dressing attached to a vacuum suction machine. A carefully controlled negative pressure (or vacuum) sucks wound and tissue fluid away from the treated area into a canister. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care or other therapies in the treatment of foot wounds in people with DM in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2018, for this first update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We identified six additional studies for inclusion in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of any brand of NPWT in the treatment of foot wounds in people with DM, irrespective of date or language of publication. Particular effort was made to identify unpublished studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Initial disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author when necessary. We presented and analysed data separately for foot ulcers and postoperative wounds.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (972 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes ranged from 15 to 341 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. The remaining 10 studies had two arms. Two studies focused on postamputation wounds and all other studies included foot ulcers in people with DM. Ten studies compared NPWT with dressings; and one study compared NPWT delivered at 75 mmHg with NPWT delivered at 125 mmHg. Our primary outcome measures were the number of wounds healed and time to wound healing.NPWT compared with dressings for postoperative woundsTwo studies (292 participants) compared NPWT with moist wound dressings in postoperative wounds (postamputation wounds). Only one study specified a follow-up time, which was 16 weeks. This study (162 participants) reported an increased number of healed wounds in the NPWT group compared with the dressings group (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 2.01; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). This study also reported that median time to healing was 21 days shorter with NPWT compared with moist dressings (hazard ratio (HR) calculated by review authors 1.91, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). Data from the two studies suggest that it is uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in amputation risk (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.02; 292 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision).NPWT compared with dressings for foot ulcersThere were eight studies (640 participants) in this analysis and follow-up times varied between studies. Six studies (513 participants) reported the proportion of wounds healed and data could be pooled for five studies. Pooled data (486 participants) suggest that NPWT may increase the number of healed wounds compared with dressings (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.72; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision). Three studies assessed time to healing, but only one study reported usable data. This study reported that NPWT reduced the time to healing compared with dressings (hazard ratio (HR) calculated by review authors 1.82, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.60; 341 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision).Data from three studies (441 participants) suggest that people allocated to NPWT may be at reduced risk of amputation compared with people allocated to dressings (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision).Low-pressure compared with high-pressure NPWT for foot ulcersOne study (40 participants) compared NPWT 75 mmHg and NPWT 125 mmHg. Follow-up time was four weeks. There were no data on primary outcomes. There was no clear difference in the number of wounds closed or covered with surgery between groups (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.47; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for serious imprecision) and adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.04; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for serious imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence to suggest that NPWT, when compared with wound dressings, may increase the proportion of wounds healed and reduce the time to healing for postoperative foot wounds and ulcers of the foot in people with DM. For the comparisons of different pressures of NPWT for treating foot ulcers in people with DM, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the number of wounds closed or covered with surgery, and adverse events. None of the included studies provided evidence on time to closure or coverage surgery, health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness. The limitations in current RCT evidence suggest that further trials are required to reduce uncertainty around decision-making regarding the use of NPWT to treat foot wounds in people with DM.

Models Used in Clinical Decision Support Systems Supporting Healthcare Professionals Treating Chronic Wounds: Systematic Literature Review

Background

Chronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers are a massive burden to health care facilities. Many randomized controlled trials on different wound care elements have been conducted and published in the Cochrane Library, all of which have only a low evidential basis. Thus, health care professionals are forced to rely on their own experience when making decisions regarding wound care. To progress from experience-based practice to evidence-based wound care practice, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that help health care providers with decision-making in a clinical workflow have been developed. These systems have proven useful in many areas of the health care sector, partly because they have increased the quality of care, and partially because they have generated a solid basis for evidence-based practice. However, no systematic reviews focus on CDSS within the field of wound care to chronic wounds.

Objective

The aims of this systematic literature review are (1) to identify models used in CDSS that support health care professionals treating chronic wounds, and (2) to classify each clinical decision support model according to selected variables and to create an overview.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using 6 databases. This systematic literature review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement for systematic reviews. The search strategy consisted of three facets, respectively: Facet 1 (Algorithm), Facet 2 (Wound care) and Facet 3 (Clinical decision support system). Studies based on acute wounds or trauma were excluded. Similarly, studies that presented guidelines, protocols and instructions were excluded, since they do not require progression along an active chain of reasoning from the clinicians, just their focus. Finally, studies were excluded if they had not undergone a peer review process. The following aspects were extracted from each article: authors, year, country, the sample size of data and variables describing the type of clinical decision support models. The decision support models were classified in 2 ways: quantitative decision support models, and qualitative decision support models.

Results

The final number of studies included in the systematic literature review was 10. These clinical decision support models included 4/10 (40%) quantitative decision support models and 6/10 (60%) qualitative decision support models. The earliest article was published in 2007, and the most recent was from 2015.

Conclusions

The clinical decision support models were targeted at a variety of different types of chronic wounds. The degree of accessibility of the inference engines varied. Quantitative models served as the engine and were invisible to the health care professionals, while qualitative models required interaction with the user.

The effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings versus other dressings in the healing of pressure ulcers in adults and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

to evaluate the effectiveness of hydrocolloids in the healing of pressure ulcers in adult and older adult patients.

Method

systematic review with meta-analysis, based on the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook. The search was undertaken in the databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Cochrane Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and the Scientific Electronic Library Online.

Results

646 primary studies were identified, 69 were evaluated and nine were selected, referring to the use of the hydrocolloid dressing in healing; of these, four studies allowed meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the hydrocolloid group and the foams group (p value=0.84; Odds Ratio 1.06, CI 95% 0.61-1.86). A slight superiority of the polyurethane dressings was observed in relation to the hydrocolloid dressings.

Conclusion

the evidence is not sufficient to affirm whether the efficacy of hydrocolloid dressings is superior to that of other dressings. It is suggested that clinical randomized trials be undertaken so as to ascertain the efficacy of this intervention in the healing of pressure ulcers, in relation to other treatments.

Curbing Inflammation in Skin Wound Healing: A Review

Wound healing is a complex regulated process that results in skin scar formation in postnatal mammals. Chronic wounds are major medical problems that can confer devastating consequences. Currently, there are no treatments to prevent scarring. In the early fetus wounds heal without scarring and the healing process is characterized by relatively less inflammation compared to adults; therefore, research aimed at reducing the inflammatory process related to wound healing might speed healing and improve the final scar appearance.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds

BACKGROUND

Chronic wounds are common and present a health problem with significant effect on quality of life. Various pathologies may cause tissue breakdown, including poor blood supply resulting in inadequate oxygenation of the wound bed. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to improve oxygen supply to wounds and therefore improve their healing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of adjunctive HBOT for treating chronic ulcers of the lower limb.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 February 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 17 February 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 17 February 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 17 February 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect on chronic wound healing of therapeutic regimens which include HBOT with those that exclude HBOT (with or without sham therapy).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of the relevant trials using the Cochrane methodology and extracted the data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreement by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twelve trials (577 participants). Ten trials (531 participants) enrolled people with a diabetic foot ulcer: pooled data of five trials with 205 participants showed an increase in the rate of ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.62; P = 0.01) with HBOT at six weeks but this benefit was not evident at longer-term follow-up at one year. There was no statistically significant difference in major amputation rate (pooled data of five trials with 312 participants, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.18). One trial (16 participants) considered venous ulcers and reported data at six weeks (wound size reduction) and 18 weeks (wound size reduction and number of ulcers healed) and suggested a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area only at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 33.00%, 95% CI 18.97 to 47.03, P < 0.00001). We identified one trial (30 participants) which enrolled patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers as well as venous ulcers ("mixed ulcers types") and patients were treated for 30 days. For this "mixed ulcers" there was a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area at the end of treatment (30 days) (MD 61.88%, 95% CI 41.91 to 81.85, P < 0.00001). We did not identify any trials that considered arterial and pressure ulcers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with foot ulcers due to diabetes, HBOT significantly improved the ulcers healed in the short term but not the long term and the trials had various flaws in design and/or reporting that means we are not confident in the results. More trials are needed to properly evaluate HBOT in people with chronic wounds; these trials must be adequately powered and designed to minimise all kinds of bias.

Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Numerous, often multi-faceted regimens are available for treating complex wounds, yet the evidence of these interventions is recondite across the literature. We aimed to identify effective interventions to treat complex wounds through an overview of systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE (OVID interface, 1946 until October 26, 2012), EMBASE (OVID interface, 1947 until October 26, 2012), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 10 of 12, 2012) were searched on October 26, 2012. Systematic reviews that examined adults receiving care for their complex wounds were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed study quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 99 systematic reviews were included after screening 6,200 titles and abstracts and 422 full-texts; 54 were systematic reviews with a meta-analysis (including data on over 54,000 patients) and 45 were systematic reviews without a meta-analysis. Overall, 44% of included reviews were rated as being of high quality (AMSTAR score ≥ 8). Based on data from systematic reviews including a meta-analysis with an AMSTAR score ≥ 8, promising interventions for complex wounds were identified. These included bandages or stockings (multi-layer, high compression) and wound cleansing for venous leg ulcers; four-layer bandages for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers; biologics, ultrasound, and hydrogel dressings for diabetic leg/foot ulcers; hydrocolloid dressings, electrotherapy, air-fluidized beds, and alternate foam mattresses for pressure ulcers; and silver dressings and ultrasound for unspecified mixed complex wounds. For surgical wound infections, topical negative pressure and vacuum-assisted closure were promising interventions, but this was based on evidence from moderate to low quality systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous interventions can be utilized for patients with varying types of complex wounds, yet few treatments were consistently effective across all outcomes throughout the literature. Clinicians and patients can use our results to tailor effective treatment according to type of complex wound. Network meta-analysis will be of benefit to decision-makers, as it will permit multiple treatment comparisons and ranking of the effectiveness of all interventions. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3.

Transdermal deferoxamine prevents pressure-induced diabetic ulcers

There is a high mortality in patients with diabetes and severe pressure ulcers. For example, chronic pressure sores of the heels often lead to limb loss in diabetic patients. A major factor underlying this is reduced neovascularization caused by impaired activity of the transcription factor hypoxia inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α). In diabetes, HIF-1α function is compromised by a high glucose-induced and reactive oxygen species-mediated modification of its coactivator p300, leading to impaired HIF-1α transactivation. We examined whether local enhancement of HIF-1α activity would improve diabetic wound healing and minimize the severity of diabetic ulcers. To improve HIF-1α activity we designed a transdermal drug delivery system (TDDS) containing the FDA-approved small molecule deferoxamine (DFO), an iron chelator that increases HIF-1α transactivation in diabetes by preventing iron-catalyzed reactive oxygen stress. Applying this TDDS to a pressure-induced ulcer model in diabetic mice, we found that transdermal delivery of DFO significantly improved wound healing. Unexpectedly, prophylactic application of this transdermal delivery system also prevented diabetic ulcer formation. DFO-treated wounds demonstrated increased collagen density, improved neovascularization, and reduction of free radical formation, leading to decreased cell death. These findings suggest that transdermal delivery of DFO provides a targeted means to both prevent ulcer formation and accelerate diabetic wound healing with the potential for rapid clinical translation.

Clinical Impact Upon Wound Healing and Inflammation in Moist, Wet, and Dry Environments

SIGNIFICANCE

Successful treatment of wounds relies on precise control and continuous monitoring of the wound-healing process. Wet or moist treatment of wounds has been shown to promote re-epithelialization and result in reduced scar formation, as compared to treatment in a dry environment.

RECENT ADVANCES

By treating wounds in a controlled wet environment, delivery of antimicrobials, analgesics, other bioactive molecules such as growth factors, as well as cells and micrografts, is allowed. The addition of growth factors or transplantation of cells yields the possibility of creating a regenerative wound microenvironment that favors healing, as opposed to excessive scar formation.

CRITICAL ISSUES

Although several manufacturers have conceived products implementing the concept of moist wound healing, there remains a lack of commercial translation of wet wound-healing principles into clinically available products. This can only be mitigated by further research on the topic.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The strong evidence pointing to the favorable healing of wounds in a wet or moist environment compared to dry treatment will extend the clinical indications for this treatment. Further advances are required to elucidate by which means this microenvironment can be optimized to improve the healing outcome.

Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of hydrocolloid wound dressings with no dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrocolloid with alternative wound treatments in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (535 participants) in the review: these compared hydrocolloids with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings, alginate dressings and a topical treatment. Meta-analysis of two studies indicated no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing between fibrous-hydrocolloids and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.38). One of these studies found that a basic wound contact dressing was more cost-effective than a fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. One study compared a hydrocolloid-matrix dressing with a foam dressing and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed. There was no statistically significant difference in healing between an antimicrobial (silver) fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing and standard alginate dressing; an antimicrobial dressing (iodine-impregnated) and a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing or a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing and a topical cream containing plant extracts.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that any type of hydrocolloid wound dressing is more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing or a topical cream containing plant extracts. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of alginate wound dressings with no wound dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of alginate dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (375 participants) in this review; these compared alginate dressings with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and a silver-containing, fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. Meta analysis of two studies found no statistically significant difference between alginate dressings and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.80). Pooled data from two studies comparing alginate dressings with foam dressings found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when an anti-microbial (silver) hydrocolloid dressing was compared with a standard alginate dressing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.47). All studies had short follow-up times (six to 12 weeks), and small sample sizes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however many trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment. Existing systematic reviews are limited by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of alternative dressings in a field where there are several different dressing options. We aimed to determine the relative effects of alternative wound dressings on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODS

This study was a systematic review involving Bayesian mixed treatment comparison. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects on diabetic foot ulcer healing of one or more wound dressings. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status.

RESULTS

Fifteen eligible studies, evaluating nine dressing types, were included. Ten direct treatment comparisons were made. Whilst there was increased healing associated with hydrogel and foam dressings compared with basic wound contact materials, these findings were based on data from small studies at unclear or high risk of bias. The mixed treatment comparison suggested that hydrocolloid-matrix dressings were associated with higher odds of ulcer healing than all other dressing types; there was a high degree of uncertainty around these estimates, which were deemed to be of very low quality.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

These findings summarise all available trial evidence regarding the use of dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers. More expensive dressings may offer no advantages in terms of healing than cheaper basic dressings. In addition, evidence pointing to a difference in favour of 'advanced' dressing types over basic wound contact materials is of low or very low quality.