4.7 Article

Effect of cadexomer iodine on the microbial load and diversity of chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm in vivo

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 72, 期 7, 页码 2093-2101

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx099

关键词

-

资金

  1. Smith Nephew

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据