Effectiveness of Topical Sucralfate in the Management of Pressure Ulcer in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of Topical Sucralfate in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: An Open-Labeled Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a major cause of lower limb amputations. Many treatment recommendations have been proposed. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of topical sucralfate when combined with mupirocin ointment, in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer in comparison to topical mupirocin alone, in terms of healing rates.

METHODS

This open-labeled randomized study was conducted on 108 patients to evaluate the effectiveness of topical sucralfate and mupirocin combination, compared to topical mupirocin alone. The patients were administered the same parenteral antibiotic, and wounds were subjected to daily dressing. The healing rates (determined by the percentage reduction in wound area) in the two groups were calculated. The mean healing rates in both groups were expressed in percentage and compared using the Student's t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were included in the study. Male-to-female ratio was 3:1. The incidence of diabetic foot was the highest (50.9%) in the age group of 50-59 years. The mean age of the study population was 51 years. The incidence of diabetic foot ulcers was highest in the months of July-August (42%). A total of 71.2% patients had random blood sugar levels between 150-200 mg/dL, and 72.2% patients had diabetes for five to 10 years. The mean±standard deviation (SD) of the healing rates in the sucralfate and mupirocin combination group and the control group were 16.2±7.3% and 14.5±6.6%, respectively. Comparison of the means by Student's t-test failed to show a statistical difference in healing rates between the two groups (p=0.201).

CONCLUSION

We concluded that the addition of topical sucralfate does not show any obvious benefits in terms of healing rates in diabetic foot ulcers as compared to mupirocin alone.

Comparison of topical sucralfate with dexpanthenol in rat wound model

Wound healing is a dynamic process initiated in response to injury. There are many factors that have detrimental effects on the wound healing process. Numerous studies have been conducted for improving wound healing processes. Dexpanthenol is widely used to accelerate wound healing. Sucralfate is used for the treatment of peptic ulcers. We aimed to compare the efficacy of topical Dexpanthenol and Sucralfate in an experimental wound model in rats via histopathological examinations and immune histochemical determinations, as well, to evaluate their effects on EGF levels. Three different groups were formed: the Control Group, the Dexpanthenol Group and the Sucralfate Group. Full-thickness skin wounds were created on the back of each rat and isotonic saline was applied to the wounds of the rats in the control group, Bepanthol^® cream was applied in Dexpanthenol Group and 10% Sucralfate cream was applied in Sucralfate Group, once a day. On the 7th, 14th and 21st days the wounds were measured and seven rats from each group were sacrificed and the wounds were excised for histopathological examination. Sucralfate increased wound healing rates by increasing neovascularization, fibroblast activation, reepithelialization and collagen density, as well as dexpanthenol. Our study revealed that the dexpanthenol and sucralfate groups were better than the control group in terms of their effects on wound healing, however there was no statistically significant difference among these two groups. Sucralfate improves EGF expression in skin wounds and has positive results on skin wound healing comparable to dexpanthenol.

Topical sucralfate for treatment of mucocutaneous conditions: A systematic review on clinical evidence

Sucralfate is an aluminum salt of sucrose octasulfate, generally considered safe in terms of adverse effects. Systemic sucralfate is FDA-approved for the treatment of duodenal ulcers. Since 1991, topical sucralfate has been used in various mucocutaneous conditions, but it is not approved by the FDA yet. In this systematic review, the online databases were searched with appropriate keywords, and the papers were screened by the authors. After screening steps, the relevant articles were selected according to the inclusions and exclusions criteria. Finally, the full texts of 18 articles were included for final evaluations. In conclusion, topical sucralfate has some clinical benefit in several mucocutaneous conditions, including mucocutaneous inflammatory conditions (e.g., post-radiotherapy reaction, diaper dermatitis, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, etc.), mucocutaneous infectious disorders (e.g., peristomal wound reaction / Infection); ulcers; burns, and also pain relief.

Randomized controlled trial of topical mupirocin versus mupirocin with sucralfate combination in chronic skin ulcers

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this study was to carry out a head-to-head comparison of topical sucralfate combined with mupirocin versus mupirocin alone in the treatment of chronic skin ulcers with respect to both effectiveness and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A parallel-group, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (CTRI/2015/12/006443) was carried out with patients suffering from skin ulcers of Wagner grading 1 or 2 persisting for over 4 weeks. Ninety-six patients were recruited in total, and the modified intention-to-treat analysis dataset included 44 participants treated with mupirocin 2% and 46 treated with combined mupirocin 2% and sucralfate 7% ointment. Both medications were applied topically thrice daily for 6 weeks. Ulcer area assessed using millimeter graph paper and wound infection score assessed on a three-point scale were effectiveness measures. Treatment-emergent adverse reactions that were reported by patients or observed by the investigators were recorded.

RESULTS:

The median ulcer area was significantly reduced in the combined treatment group at the end of treatment. Clinically, 41.3% of the participants in the combined group showed complete ulcer healing at 6 weeks compared to 18.18% in the mupirocin alone group (P = 0.022). The wound infection score declined significantly from baseline by the end of 3 weeks of treatment in both the groups. The frequency of qualitative wound attributes, namely pain, discharge, and erythema, remained comparable between the groups except for discharge which disappeared completely from all remaining ulcers in the combined group but was still present in 11.36% of the participants treated with mupirocin alone (P = 0.025) at 6 weeks. Adverse events were few, all local, mild, and tolerable.

CONCLUSIONS:

The wound healing effect of topical sucralfate adds to the antimicrobial effect of mupirocin toward the overall improvement of chronic skin ulcers. The effect of combined topical treatment needs comparison with other topical medications and wound healing strategies.