Fibrin gel versus papain gel in the healing of chronic venous ulcers: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

Review of the Current Evidence for Topical Treatment for Venous Leg Ulcers

OBJECTIVE

The development of a venous leg ulcer (VLU) represents the most severe clinical manifestation of a chronic venous disease. Despite major progress, there is a limited understanding of VLU pathogenesis and wound healing biology. Treatment of VLUs remains a serious challenge for physicians of different specialties. This communication focuses on describing the rationale and scientific basis for topical wound care in the management of VLUs.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to summarize methods with proven efficacy in VLU management. A systematic literature search was also performed to identify new evidence from the randomized controlled trials published within 2014-2021. The scientific challenges, clinical practice concerns, economic obstacles, and possible directions for further research have been discussed.

RESULTS

Hundreds of topical products have been advertised for the treatment of VLUs. Published data on topical treatment of venous ulcers is insufficient, scattered, weak, and has significant methodological flaws. Forty-three randomized controlled trials on topical treatment of VLUs have been published within 2014-2021. Clinical practice guidelines need to be updated. Major gaps in knowledge have been identified, and suggestions for future research directions have been provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The American Venous Forum Research Committee would like to bring attention to topical wound care for VLUs as a critical gap in knowledge, and encourage scientists, practitioners, and industry to collaborate to fill this gap.

Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg which can be slow to heal, and are both painful and costly. The point prevalence of open venous leg ulcers in the UK is about 3 cases per 10,000 people, and many people experience recurrent episodes of prolonged ulceration. First-line treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, but a wide range of dressings and topical treatments are also used. This diversity of treatments makes evidence-based decision-making challenging, and a clear and current overview of all the evidence is required. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of (1) dressings and (2) topical agents for healing venous leg ulcers in any care setting and to rank treatments in order of effectiveness, with assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We updated this search in March 2018; as a result several studies are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults with venous leg ulcers and compared the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open venous leg ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factors and other biological agents, larval therapy and treatments such as laser, heat or ultrasound. Studies were required to report complete wound healing to be eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We conducted this NMA using frequentist meta-regression methods for the efficacy outcome; the probability of complete healing. We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual treatments focusing on comparisons with widely used dressing classes, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 RCTs (7014 participants) in this review. Of these, 59 studies (5156 participants, 25 different interventions) were included in the NMA; resulting in 40 direct contrasts which informed 300 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the network as a whole was of low certainty. This judgement was based on the sparsity of the network leading to imprecision and the general high risk of bias in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses also demonstrated instability in key aspects of the network and results are reported for the extended sensitivity analysis. Evidence for individual contrasts was mainly judged to be low or very low certainty.The uncertainty was perpetuated when the results were considered by ranking the treatments in terms of the probability that they were the most effective for ulcer healing, with many treatments having similar, low, probabilities of being the best treatment. The two most highly-ranked treatments both had more than 50% probability of being the best (sucralfate and silver dressings). However, the data for sucralfate was from one small study, which means that this finding should be interpreted with caution. When exploring the data for silver and sucralfate compared with widely-used dressing classes, there was some evidence that silver dressings may increase the probability of venous leg ulcer healing, compared with nonadherent dressings: RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.74 (moderate-certainty evidence in the context of a low-certainty network). For all other combinations of these five interventions it was unclear whether the intervention increased the probability of healing; in each case this was low- or very low-certainty evidence as a consequence of one or more of imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, largely because of the low certainty of the whole network and of individual comparisons.The results of this NMA focus exclusively on complete healing; whilst this is of key importance to people living with venous leg ulcers, clinicians may wish to take into account other patient-important outcomes and factors such as patient preference and cost.

The Proteolytic Fraction from Latex of Vasconcellea cundinamarcensis (P1G10) Enhances Wound Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Double-Blind Randomized Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to investigate the role of the proteolytic fraction from Vasconcellea cundinamarcensis, designated as P1G10, on the healing of chronic foot ulcers in neuropathic patients with diabetes 2.

METHODS

Fifty patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, to verify the efficacy and safety of a topical dressing formulated with 0.1% P1G10, intended for wound healing, versus a hydrogel (control) protocol. Upon completion of the intervention, the outcome evaluated the number of patients attaining full epithelization (100%), or at least 80% healing. Statistical analysis compared the data on each group for the significance of the differences.

RESULTS

Collection of data was finished in week 16, and the results were analyzed by intention to treat. The results showed that, in the control group, 5 patients attained 100% ulcer healing, 3 patients ≥ 80% healing and 11 experienced ulcer changes ≤ 80%, and the remainder showed no changes or their wounds became worse. Meanwhile, in the P1G10 group, 11 patients experienced full healing, 4 had healing ≥ 80% and 5 had ulcer changes ≤ lower than 80%, and the remainder showed no changes or their wounds became worse. The healing incidence for the first endpoint (100% healing) showed that the P1G10 group was 2.95-fold more efficacious than the control group (CI 95%) and 2.52-fold (CI, 95%) higher than its control for the second endpoint (80% healing).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the hypothesis that topical application of the proteolytic fraction identified as P1G10 significantly enhances foot ulcer healing compared to hydrogel treatment.