The Experts below are selected from a list of 234 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Matthew Malone - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Efficacy of topical Cadexomer Iodine treatment in chronic wounds: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative clinical trials.
International wound journal, 2021Co-Authors: Kevin Y. Woo, Emma J. Woodmansey, Caroline Dowsett, Ben Costa, Stephen Ebohon, Matthew MaloneAbstract:The aim of this study was to summarise the clinical evidence supporting almost 40 years of topical Cadexomer Iodine (CIOD) use in wound bed preparation by removing barriers to healing such as exudate, slough, bioburden, and infection and allowing chronic wound progression. A systematic review was conducted (Embase/PubMed, November 2020) to identify relevant comparative studies meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects (I2
-
efficacy of topical Cadexomer Iodine treatment in chronic wounds systematic review and meta analysis of comparative clinical trials
International Wound Journal, 2021Co-Authors: Kevin Y. Woo, Emma J. Woodmansey, Caroline Dowsett, Ben Costa, Stephen Ebohon, Matthew MaloneAbstract:The aim of this study was to summarise the clinical evidence supporting almost 40 years of topical Cadexomer Iodine (CIOD) use in wound bed preparation by removing barriers to healing such as exudate, slough, bioburden, and infection and allowing chronic wound progression. A systematic review was conducted (Embase/PubMed, November 2020) to identify relevant comparative studies meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects (I2 < 50%) or random-effects model (I2 ≥ 50%) depending on statistical heterogeneity. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals. In total, 436 publications were identified of which 13 were comparative trials including outcomes of interest. Significant reductions in exudate, pus/debris, slough, bioburden, and infection were reported in chronic wounds treated with CIOD, compared with standard of care (SOC). Meta-analyses highlighted the positive impact of CIOD on mean wound area reduction (MD = 2.35 cm2 , 95% CI = 0.34-4.36, P = .0219) after eight weeks treatment and overall wound healing events compared to SOC; wounds including venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, and pressure ulcers treated with CIOD were more than twice as likely to heal than those receiving SOC (RR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.54-3.45, P < .0001). This meta-analysis demonstrates the efficacy of CIOD on chronic wounds through removal of barriers to healing. CIOD should be considered in wound bed preparation and treatment protocols.
-
Effect on total microbial load and community composition with two vs six-week topical Cadexomer Iodine for treating chronic biofilm infections in diabetic foot ulcers.
International wound journal, 2019Co-Authors: Matthew Malone, Saskia Schwarzer, Michael Radzieta, Thomas C. Jeffries, Annie Walsh, Hugh G. Dickson, Grace Micali, Slade O. JensenAbstract:This study compares two vs six weeks of topical antimicrobial therapy with Cadexomer Iodine in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) complicated by chronic biofilm infections. Patients with non-healing DFUs with suspected chronic biofilm infections were eligible for enrolment. Patients were randomised to receive either two or six weeks of treatment with topical Cadexomer Iodine. Tissue biopsies from the ulcers were obtained pre-and-post treatment and underwent DNA sequencing and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to determine the total microbial load, community composition, and diversity of bacteria. Scanning electron microscopy confirmed biofilm in all 18 ulcers with suspected chronic biofilm infections. Cadexomer Iodine resulted in 14 of 18 (78%) samples achieving a mean 0.5 log10 reduction in microbial load. Regardless of treatment duration, there was no statistical difference in the reduction of total microbial loads. No difference in the rate of wound healing in the two groups was seen at 6 weeks. Cadexomer Iodine reduces the total microbial load in DFUs with chronic biofilm infections and affects microbial community composition and diversity. All ulcers in both groups showed an initial reduction in wound size with application of Cadexomer Iodine, which might reflect its effect on biofilms.
-
effect of Cadexomer Iodine on the microbial load and diversity of chronic non healing diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm in vivo
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2017Co-Authors: Matthew Malone, Hugh G. Dickson, Slade O. Jensen, Khalid Johani, Iain B Gosbell, Susan V Mclennan, Karen VickeryAbstract:Objectives The performance of Cadexomer Iodine was determined against microbial populations from chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) complicated by biofilm in vivo , using molecular, microscopy and zymography methods. Methods Chronic non-healing DFUs due to suspected biofilm involvement were eligible for enrolment. DNA sequencing and real-time quantitative PCR was used to determine the microbial load and diversity of tissue punch biopsies obtained pre- and post-treatment. Scanning electron microscopy and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence or absence of biofilm. Zymography was used to determine levels of wound proteases. Results Seventeen participants were recruited over a 6 month period. Scanning electron microscopy and or fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence of biofilm in all samples. Eleven participants exhibited log 10 reductions in microbial load after treatment (range 1-2 log 10 ) in comparison with six patients who experienced <1 log 10 reduction ( P = 0.04). Samples were tested for levels of wound proteases pre- and post-treatment. Reductions in the microbial load correlated to reductions in wound proteases pre- and post-treatment ( P = 0.03). Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first in vivo evidence, employing a range of molecular and microscopy techniques, of the ability of Cadexomer Iodine to reduce the microbial load of chronic non-healing DFUs complicated by biofilm. Further analyses correlating log reductions to optimal duration of therapy and improvements in clinical parameters of wound healing in a larger cohort are required.
-
Effect of Cadexomer Iodine on the microbial load and diversity of chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm in vivo.
The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2017Co-Authors: Matthew Malone, Hugh G. Dickson, Slade O. Jensen, Khalid Johani, Iain B Gosbell, Susan V Mclennan, Karen VickeryAbstract:Objectives The performance of Cadexomer Iodine was determined against microbial populations from chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) complicated by biofilm in vivo , using molecular, microscopy and zymography methods. Methods Chronic non-healing DFUs due to suspected biofilm involvement were eligible for enrolment. DNA sequencing and real-time quantitative PCR was used to determine the microbial load and diversity of tissue punch biopsies obtained pre- and post-treatment. Scanning electron microscopy and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence or absence of biofilm. Zymography was used to determine levels of wound proteases. Results Seventeen participants were recruited over a 6 month period. Scanning electron microscopy and or fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence of biofilm in all samples. Eleven participants exhibited log 10 reductions in microbial load after treatment (range 1-2 log 10 ) in comparison with six patients who experienced
Eric Roche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cadexomer Iodine effectively reduces bacterial biofilm in porcine wounds ex vivo and in vivo.
International wound journal, 2019Co-Authors: Eric Roche, Emma J. Woodmansey, Qingping Yang, Daniel J. Gibson, Hongen Zhang, Gregory S. SchultzAbstract:Biofilms are prevalent in non-healing chronic wounds and implicated in delayed healing. Tolerance to antimicrobial treatments and the host's immune system leave clinicians with limited interventions against biofilm populations. It is therefore essential that effective treatments be rigorously tested and demonstrate an impact on biofilm across multiple experimental models to guide clinical investigations and protocols. Cadexomer Iodine has previously been shown to be effective against biofilm in various in vitro models, against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in mouse wounds, and clinically in diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm. Similarities between porcine and human skin make the pig a favoured model for cutaneous wound studies. Two antiseptic dressings and a gauze control were assessed against mature biofilm grown on ex vivo pig skin and in a pig wound model. Significant reductions in biofilm were observed following treatment with Cadexomer Iodine across both biofilm models. In contrast, silver carboxymethylcellulose dressings had minimal impact on biofilm in the models, with similar results to the control in the ex vivo model. Microscopy and histopathology indicate that the depth of organisms in wound tissue may impact treatment effectiveness. Further work on the promising biofilm efficacy of Cadexomer Iodine is needed to determine optimal treatment durations against biofilm.
-
Cadexomer Iodine provides superior efficacy against bacterial wound biofilms in vitro and in vivo
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2017Co-Authors: Daniel James Fitzgerald, Paul J. Renick, Emma C. Forrest, Shannon P. Tetens, David N. Earnest, Jillian Mcmillan, Brett M. Kiedaisch, Lei Shi, Eric RocheAbstract:Examination of clinical samples indicates bacterial biofilms are present in the majority of chronic wounds, and substantial evidence suggests biofilms contribute significantly to delayed healing. Bacteria in biofilms are highly tolerant of antimicrobials, and little data exist to guide the choice of anti-biofilm wound therapy. Cadexomer Iodine (CI) was recently reported to have superior efficacy compared to diverse wound dressings against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in an ex vivo model. In the current study, the strong performance of CI versus P. aeruginosa biofilm was confirmed using colony and colony drip-flow in vitro wound biofilm models. Similar in vitro efficacy of CI was also demonstrated against mature Staphylococcus aureus biofilms using the same models. Additionally, the rapid kill of mature S. aureus and P. aeruginosa colony biofilms was visualized by confocal microscopy using Live/Dead fluorescent stains. Superior in vitro efficacy of CI versus staphylococcal biofilms was further demonstrated against MRSA using multiple biofilm models with log reduction, Live/Dead, and metabolic endpoints. Comparator antimicrobial dressings, including silver-based dressings used throughout and other active agents used in individual models, elucidated only limited effects against the mature biofilms. Given the promising in vitro activity, CI was tested in an established mouse model of MRSA wound biofilm. CI had significantly greater impact on MRSA biofilm in mouse wounds than silver dressings or mupirocin based on Gram-stained histology sections and quantitative microbiology from biopsy samples (>4 log reduction in CFU/g versus 0.7-1.6, p<0.0001). The superior efficacy for CI in these in vitro and in vivo models suggests CI topical products may represent a better choice to address established bacterial biofilm in chronic wounds. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
-
Cadexomer Iodine provides superior efficacy against bacterial wound biofilms in vitro and in vivo
Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2016Co-Authors: Daniel James Fitzgerald, Paul J. Renick, Emma C. Forrest, Shannon P. Tetens, David N. Earnest, Jillian Mcmillan, Brett M. Kiedaisch, Lei Shi, Eric RocheAbstract:Examination of clinical samples indicates bacterial biofilms are present in the majority of chronic wounds, and substantial evidence suggests biofilms contribute significantly to delayed healing. Bacteria in biofilms are highly tolerant of antimicrobials, and little data exist to guide the choice of anti-biofilm wound therapy. Cadexomer Iodine (CI) was recently reported to have superior efficacy compared to diverse wound dressings against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in an ex vivo model. In the current study, the strong performance of CI vs. P. aeruginosa biofilm was confirmed using colony and colony drip-flow in vitro wound biofilm models. Similar in vitro efficacy of CI was also demonstrated against mature Staphylococcus aureus biofilms using the same models. Additionally, the rapid kill of mature S. aureus and P. aeruginosa colony biofilms was visualized by confocal microscopy using Live/Dead fluorescent stains. Superior in vitro efficacy of CI vs. staphylococcal biofilms was further demonstrated against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) using multiple biofilm models with log reduction, Live/Dead, and metabolic endpoints. Comparator antimicrobial dressings, including silver-based dressings used throughout and other active agents used in individual models, elucidated only limited effects against the mature biofilms. Given the promising in vitro activity, CI was tested in an established mouse model of MRSA wound biofilm. CI had significantly greater impact on MRSA biofilm in mouse wounds than silver dressings or mupirocin based on Gram-stained histology sections and quantitative microbiology from biopsy samples (>4 log reduction in CFU/g vs. 0.7-1.6, p
Liza G Ovington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Cochrane Library - Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014Co-Authors: Susan O’meara, Deyaa Al-kurdi, Yemisi Ologun, Liza G Ovington, Marrissa Martyn-st James, Rachel RichardsonAbstract:Background Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. Objectives The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. Search methods In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. Data collection and analysis Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. Main results Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: Cadexomer Iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-Iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibiotics More participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-Iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer Iodine: more participants were healed when given Cadexomer Iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when Cadexomer Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings. Povidone Iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-Iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-Iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable. Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing. Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care. Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings. Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment. Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. Authors' conclusions At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of Cadexomer Iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-Iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.
-
Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013Co-Authors: Susan O'meara, Deyaa Al-kurdi, Yemisi Ologun, Liza G Ovington, Marrissa Martyn-st James, Rachel RichardsonAbstract:Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers; review authors also examined the effects of these interventions on clinical infection, bacterial flora, bacterial resistance, ulcer recurrence, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and costs. In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: Cadexomer Iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-Iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-Iodine. Topical antibiotics and antisepticsCadexomer Iodine: more participants were healed when given Cadexomer Iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when Cadexomer Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone Iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-Iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-Iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of Cadexomer Iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-Iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.
-
Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010Co-Authors: Susan O'meara, Deyaa Al-kurdi, Yemisi Ologun, Liza G OvingtonAbstract:Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. There are two main strategies used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. The objective of the review is to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. For the update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24/09/09); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 3; Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to September Week 3 2009; Ovid EMBASE - 1980 to 2009 Week 38; and EBSCO CINAHL - 1982 to September Week 3 2009. No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Randomised controlled trials recruiting people with venous leg ulceration and evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two authors working independently. Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes were recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one author and checked by a second. Twenty five trials reporting 32 comparisons were identified. Five trials evaluated systemic antibiotics; the remainder evaluated topical preparations: Cadexomer Iodine (10 trials); povidone Iodine (5 trials); peroxide-based preparations (3 trials); ethacridine lactate (1 trial); mupirocin (1 trial); and chlorhexidine (1 trial). For the systemic antibiotics, the only comparison where a statistically significant between-group difference was detected was that in favour of the antihelminthic levamisole when compared with placebo. This trial, in common with the other evaluations of systemic antibiotics, was small and so the observed effect could have occurred by chance or been due to baseline imbalances in prognostic factors. For topical preparations, there is some evidence to suggest that Cadexomer Iodine generates higher healing rates than standard care. One study showed a statistically significant result in favour of Cadexomer Iodine when compared with standard care (not involving compression) in the frequency of complete healing at six weeks (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.74). The intervention regimen used was intensive, involving daily dressing changes, and so these findings may not be generalisable to most everyday clinical settings. When Cadexomer Iodine was compared with standard care with all patients receiving compression, the pooled estimate from two trials for frequency of complete healing at 4 to 6 weeks indicated significantly higher healing rates for Cadexomer Iodine (RR 6.72, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.95). Surrogate healing outcomes such as change in ulcer surface area and daily or weekly healing rate showed favourable results for Cadexomer Iodine, peroxide-based preparations and ethacridine lactate in some studies. These surrogate outcomes may not be valid proxies for complete healing of the wound. Most of the trials were small and many had methodological problems such as poor baseline comparability between groups, failure to use (or report) true randomisation, adequate allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment and analysis by intention-to-treat. At present, there is no evidence to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics to promote healing in venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, there is some evidence to support the use of Cadexomer Iodine. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics and topical preparations such as povidone Iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, mupirocin and chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should only be used in cases of clinical infection and not for bacterial colonisation.
-
Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008Co-Authors: Susan O'meara, Deyaa Al-kurdi, Liza G OvingtonAbstract:Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their life. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. There are two main strategies used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. The objective of the review is to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. The following databases were searched up to October 2007: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CINAHL. In addition, the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles were examined. Randomised controlled trials recruiting people with venous leg ulceration that evaluated at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic and reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by three authors working independently. Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes were recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, use of blinded outcome assessment, intention-to-treat analysis, reporting of patient follow-up and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one author and checked by a second. Twenty two trials were identified of different antibiotics and antiseptics, including systemic antibiotics (5 trials). The remainder were topical preparations: Cadexomer Iodine (10 trials); povidone Iodine (2 trials); peroxide-based preparations (3 trials); ethacridine lactate (1 trial); and mupirocin (1 trial). For the systemic antibiotics, the only comparison where a statistically significant between-group difference was detected was that in favour of the antihelminthic levamisole when compared with placebo. This trial, in common with the other evaluations of systemic antibiotics, was small and so the observed effect could have occurred by chance. In terms of topical preparations, there is some evidence to suggest that Cadexomer Iodine generates higher healing rates than standard care. One study showed a statistically significant result in favour of Cadexomer Iodine when compared with standard care (not involving compression) in terms of frequency of complete healing at six weeks (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.74). The intervention regimen used was intensive, involving daily dressing changes, and so these findings may not be generalisable to most everyday clinical settings. When Cadexomer Iodine was compared with standard care with all patients receiving compression, the pooled estimate from two trials for frequency of complete healing at 4 to 6 weeks indicated significantly higher healing rates for Cadexomer Iodine (RR 6.72, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.95). Surrogate healing outcomes such as change in ulcer surface area and daily or weekly healing rate showed favourable results for Cadexomer Iodine, peroxide-based preparations and ethacridine lactate in some studies. These surrogate outcomes may not be valid proxies for complete healing of the wound. Most of the trials were small and many had methodological problems such as poor baseline comparability between groups, failure to use (or report) true randomisation, adequate allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment and analysis by intention-to-treat. At present, there is no existing evidence to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics to promote healing in venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, there is some evidence to support the use of Cadexomer Iodine. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics and topical preparations such as povidone Iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate and mupirocin in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should only be used in cases of defined infection and not for bacterial colonisation.
Emma J. Woodmansey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
efficacy of topical Cadexomer Iodine treatment in chronic wounds systematic review and meta analysis of comparative clinical trials
International Wound Journal, 2021Co-Authors: Kevin Y. Woo, Emma J. Woodmansey, Caroline Dowsett, Ben Costa, Stephen Ebohon, Matthew MaloneAbstract:The aim of this study was to summarise the clinical evidence supporting almost 40 years of topical Cadexomer Iodine (CIOD) use in wound bed preparation by removing barriers to healing such as exudate, slough, bioburden, and infection and allowing chronic wound progression. A systematic review was conducted (Embase/PubMed, November 2020) to identify relevant comparative studies meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects (I2 < 50%) or random-effects model (I2 ≥ 50%) depending on statistical heterogeneity. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals. In total, 436 publications were identified of which 13 were comparative trials including outcomes of interest. Significant reductions in exudate, pus/debris, slough, bioburden, and infection were reported in chronic wounds treated with CIOD, compared with standard of care (SOC). Meta-analyses highlighted the positive impact of CIOD on mean wound area reduction (MD = 2.35 cm2 , 95% CI = 0.34-4.36, P = .0219) after eight weeks treatment and overall wound healing events compared to SOC; wounds including venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, and pressure ulcers treated with CIOD were more than twice as likely to heal than those receiving SOC (RR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.54-3.45, P < .0001). This meta-analysis demonstrates the efficacy of CIOD on chronic wounds through removal of barriers to healing. CIOD should be considered in wound bed preparation and treatment protocols.
-
Efficacy of topical Cadexomer Iodine treatment in chronic wounds: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative clinical trials.
International wound journal, 2021Co-Authors: Kevin Y. Woo, Emma J. Woodmansey, Caroline Dowsett, Ben Costa, Stephen Ebohon, Matthew MaloneAbstract:The aim of this study was to summarise the clinical evidence supporting almost 40 years of topical Cadexomer Iodine (CIOD) use in wound bed preparation by removing barriers to healing such as exudate, slough, bioburden, and infection and allowing chronic wound progression. A systematic review was conducted (Embase/PubMed, November 2020) to identify relevant comparative studies meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects (I2
-
Cadexomer Iodine effectively reduces bacterial biofilm in porcine wounds ex vivo and in vivo.
International wound journal, 2019Co-Authors: Eric Roche, Emma J. Woodmansey, Qingping Yang, Daniel J. Gibson, Hongen Zhang, Gregory S. SchultzAbstract:Biofilms are prevalent in non-healing chronic wounds and implicated in delayed healing. Tolerance to antimicrobial treatments and the host's immune system leave clinicians with limited interventions against biofilm populations. It is therefore essential that effective treatments be rigorously tested and demonstrate an impact on biofilm across multiple experimental models to guide clinical investigations and protocols. Cadexomer Iodine has previously been shown to be effective against biofilm in various in vitro models, against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in mouse wounds, and clinically in diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm. Similarities between porcine and human skin make the pig a favoured model for cutaneous wound studies. Two antiseptic dressings and a gauze control were assessed against mature biofilm grown on ex vivo pig skin and in a pig wound model. Significant reductions in biofilm were observed following treatment with Cadexomer Iodine across both biofilm models. In contrast, silver carboxymethylcellulose dressings had minimal impact on biofilm in the models, with similar results to the control in the ex vivo model. Microscopy and histopathology indicate that the depth of organisms in wound tissue may impact treatment effectiveness. Further work on the promising biofilm efficacy of Cadexomer Iodine is needed to determine optimal treatment durations against biofilm.
-
Estimating the Clinical Outcomes and Cost Differences Between Standard Care With and Without Cadexomer Iodine in the Management of Chronic Venous Leg Ulcers Using a Markov Model.
Ostomy wound management, 2016Co-Authors: L Nherera, Emma J. Woodmansey, Paul Trueman, Garry W GibbonsAbstract:Chronic venous leg ulcers (VLUs) affect up to 1% of the adult population in the developed world and present a significant financial and resource burden to health care systems. Cadexomer Iodine (CI) is an antimicrobial dressing indicated for use in chronic exuding wounds. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost utility of using CI + standard care (SC) - ie, high compression multicomponent bandaging including debridement - compared with SC alone in the management of chronic (>6 months' duration) VLUs from a payer's perspective. A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost and clinical benefits (healing and decreased infection rates) of the 2 treatment modalities over a 1-year period using data from 4 randomized, controlled clinical studies (RCTs) included in a recent Cochrane review and cost data from a recently published economic evaluation of VLUs. Costs were calculated using 2014 United States dollars; wound outcomes in- cluded complete healing in 212 patients reported in the Cochrane meta-analysis and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with utility values obtained from 200 patients with VLUs calculated using standard gamble. Treatment with CI over 1 year was $7,259 compared to $7,901 for SC. This resulted in a cost savings of $643/patient in favor of CI compared with SC. More patients treated with CI (61%) had their wounds healed compared to 54% treated with SC. Furthermore, patients treated with CI+SC experienced 6 additional ulcer-free weeks compared to persons treated with SC alone (ie, 25 ulcer- free weeks compared to 19 ulcer-free weeks, respectively). Overall, CI resulted in 0.03 more QALYs (ie, 0.86 QALYs compared to 0.83 for SC). The use of CI in addition to SC compared to SC alone over 52 weeks resulted in more wounds healed and more QALYs along with a decrease of overall costs The results of this study suggest CI is cost effective com- pared to SC alone in the management of patients with chronic VLUs. Prospective, controlled clinical studies are needed to elucidate the effect and cost effectiveness of CI on VLUs with and without signs of infection as compared to SC, other antiseptics, and more advanced topical treatment modalities.
Rachel Richardson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Topical and systemic antimicrobial therapy for venous leg ulcers.
JAMA, 2014Co-Authors: Susan O’meara, Rachel Richardson, Benjamin A. LipskyAbstract:Is treatment with topical or systemic antimicrobial agents associated with better venous leg ulcer healing compared with usual care (dressings and bandages without antimicrobials) or an alternative topical or systemic antimicrobial agent? Available evidence, from underpowered pooled data, neither supports nor refutes an association of systemic antibiotic therapy with improved venous leg ulcer healing. Among topical antimicrobials, Cadexomer Iodine may be associated with better healing compared with usual care.
-
The Cochrane Library - Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014Co-Authors: Susan O’meara, Deyaa Al-kurdi, Yemisi Ologun, Liza G Ovington, Marrissa Martyn-st James, Rachel RichardsonAbstract:Background Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. Objectives The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. Search methods In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. Data collection and analysis Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. Main results Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: Cadexomer Iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-Iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibiotics More participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-Iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer Iodine: more participants were healed when given Cadexomer Iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when Cadexomer Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings. Povidone Iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-Iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-Iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable. Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing. Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care. Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings. Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment. Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. Authors' conclusions At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of Cadexomer Iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-Iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.
-
Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013Co-Authors: Susan O'meara, Deyaa Al-kurdi, Yemisi Ologun, Liza G Ovington, Marrissa Martyn-st James, Rachel RichardsonAbstract:Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers; review authors also examined the effects of these interventions on clinical infection, bacterial flora, bacterial resistance, ulcer recurrence, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and costs. In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: Cadexomer Iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-Iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-Iodine. Topical antibiotics and antisepticsCadexomer Iodine: more participants were healed when given Cadexomer Iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when Cadexomer Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone Iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-Iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-Iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-Iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of Cadexomer Iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-Iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.
