Dataset Information

Efficacy of a povidone-iodine foam dressing (Betafoam) on diabetic foot ulcer.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a new povidone-iodine (PVP-I) foam dressing (Betafoam) vs foam dressing (Medifoam) for the management of diabetic foot ulcers. This study was conducted between March 2016 and September 2017 at 10 sites in Korea. A total of 71 patients (aged ≥19 years) with type 1/2 diabetes and early-phase diabetic foot ulcers (Wagener classification grade 1/2) were randomised to treatment with PVP-I foam dressing or foam dressing for 8 weeks. Wound healing, wound infection, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. The PVP-I foam and foam dressing groups were comparable in the proportion of patients with complete wound healing within 8 weeks (44.4% vs 42.3%, P = .9191), mean (±SD) number of days to complete healing (31.00 ± 15.07 vs 33.27 ± 12.60 days; P = .6541), and infection rates (11.1% vs 11.4%; P = 1.0000). Median satisfaction score (scored from 0 to 10) at the final visit was also comparable between groups (10 vs 9, P = .2889). There was no significant difference in AE incidence (27.8% vs 17.1%, P = .2836), and none of the reported AEs had a causal relationship with the dressings. The results of this study suggest that PVP-I foam dressing has wound-healing efficacy comparable with foam dressing, with no notable safety concerns. This study was funded by Mundipharma Korea Ltd and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02732886).

SUBMITTER: Gwak HC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7949421 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and elucidate the association between DR and DFU severities and their shared risk factors.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted on DFU patients who underwent ophthalmic and vascular examinations within 6 months; 100 type 2 diabetic patients with DFU were included. The medical records of 2496 type 2 diabetic patients without DFU served as control data. DR prevalence and severity were assessed in DFU patients. DFU patients were compared with the control group regarding each clinical variable. Additionally, DFU patients were divided into two groups according to DR severity and compared.ResultsOut of 100 DFU patients, 90 patients (90%) had DR and 55 (55%) had proliferative DR (PDR). There was no significant association between DR and DFU severities (R = 0.034, p = 0.734). A multivariable analysis comparing type 2 diabetic patients with and without DFUs showed that the presence of DR [OR, 226.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 58.07-880.49; p < 0.001] and proliferative DR [OR, 306.27; 95% CI, 64.35-1457.80; p < 0.001), higher HbA1c (%, OR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.46-2.67; p < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (mg/dL, OR, 1.62, 95% CI, 1.06-2.50; p = 0.027), older age (years, OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17; p < 0.001), higher pulse pressure (mmHg, OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; p = 0.025), lower cholesterol (mg/dL, OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97; p < 0.001), lower BMI (kg/m2, OR, 0.87, 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.044) and lower hematocrit (%, OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87; p < 0.001) were associated with DFUs. In a subgroup analysis of DFU patients, the PDR group had a longer duration of diabetes mellitus, higher serum BUN, and higher serum creatinine than the non-PDR group. In the multivariable analysis, only higher serum creatinine was associated with PDR in DFU patients (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.78; p = 0.021).ConclusionsDiabetic retinopathy is prevalent in patients with DFU and about half of DFU patients had PDR. No significant association was found in terms of the severity of these two diabetic complications. To prevent blindness, patients with DFU, and especially those with high serum creatinine, should undergo retinal examinations for timely PDR diagnosis and management.

Project description:IntroductionAccurate identification of pathogens, rather than colonising bacteria, is a prerequisite for targeted antibiotic therapy to ensure optimal patient outcome in wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers. Wound swabs are the easiest and most commonly used sampling technique but most published guidelines recommend instead removal of a tissue sample from the wound bed, which is a more complex process. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples in patients with suspected diabetic foot infection.Methods and analysisPatients with a diabetic foot ulcer that is thought to be infected are being recruited from 25 sites across England in a cross-sectional study. The coprimary endpoints for the study are agreement between the two sampling techniques for three microbiological parameters: reported presence of likely isolates identified by the UK Health Protection Agency; resistance of isolates to usual antibiotic agents; and, the number of isolates reported per specimen. Secondary endpoints include appropriateness of the empiric antibiotic therapy prescribed and adverse events. Enrolling 400 patients will provide 80% power to detect a difference of 3% in the reported presence of an organism, assuming organism prevalence of 10%, discordance of 5% and a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance. Assumed overall prevalence is based on relatively uncommon organisms such as Pseudomonas. We will define acceptable agreement as ?>0.6.Ethics and disseminationConcordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection (CODIFI) will produce robust data to evaluate the two most commonly used sampling techniques employed for patients with a diabetic foot infection. This will help determine whether or not it is important that clinicians take tissue samples rather than swabs in infected ulcers. This study has been approved by the Sheffield NRES Committee (Ref: 11/YH/0078) and all sites have obtained local approvals prior starting recruitment.Study registrationNRES Ref: 11/YH/0078, UKCRN ID: 10440, ISRCTN: 52608451.

Project description:Background and aimsDiabetic foot ulcers, a major cause of amputations in diabetics, could benefit from natural products as adjuncts to standard care, given the costs and adverse effects of typical therapies. This study aims to evaluate the short-term effects of dressing with Dermaheal ointment in the treatment of DFUs through a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial.MethodsThis double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial included 50 patients with Wagner's ulcer grade I or II, randomly assigned to Dermaheal and placebo groups (received standard treatment and placebo ointment). The ulcer site was dressed daily for four consecutive weeks with either Dermaheal or placebo ointment. Ulcer healing score (using DFU healing checklist), ulcer size with transparent ruler and largest dimension of ulcer, and pain severity using numerical pain rating score (were recorded at five-time points, including baseline, and on weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4). Also, ulcer healing status was investigated at the trial ended in November 2021.ResultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in ulcer healing over 4 weeks (p time < 0.001), with more remarkable progress in the Dermaheal group (p group = 0.03). At the trial end, complete ulcer healing was also significantly higher in the Dermaheal group compared to the placebo group (56% vs. 12%, p = 0.002). Both groups exhibited a decrease in ulcer size (p time < 0.001). Considering the baseline ulcer size as a covariate, substantial changes in mean ulcer size were noted in the initial (p = 0.01), second (p = 0.001), third (p = 0.002), and fourth (p = 0.002) weeks of the intervention, showing a preference for the Dermaheal group. However, no significant between-group difference was observed in pain severity levels.ConclusionDressing with Dermaheal as a topical treatment shows promise in improving healing and reducing the size of diabetic foot ulcers. Further research is needed to confirm these findings' long-term efficacy.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of a povidone-iodine foam dressing (Betafoam) on diabetic foot ulcer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets