Topical phenytoin solution for treating pressure ulcers: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Phenytoin-loaded bioactive nanoparticles for the treatment of diabetic pressure ulcers: formulation and in vitro/in vivo evaluation

Drug repurposing offers the chance to explore the full potential of existing drugs while reducing drug development time and costs. For instance, the anticonvulsant drug phenytoin (PHT) has been investigated for its wound healing properties. However, its poor solubility and variability of doses used topically limit its use. Hence, the aim of this study was to improve the properties and wound healing efficacy of PHT for the treatment of diabetic bedsores. PHT was encapsulated, using a modified ionic gelation method, in either positively or negatively charged chitosan-alginate nanoparticles (NPs), which possess previously demonstrated wound healing potential. These NPs were characterized by transmission electron microscopy, differential scanning calorimetry, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. PHT-loaded NPs were evaluated in vivo for their pressure ulcers' healing potential using diabetic rats. The prepared NPs, especially the positively charged particles, exhibited superior wound healing efficacy compared to PHT suspension, with respect to healing rates, granulation tissue formation, tissue maturation, and collagen content. The positively charged NPs resulted in a 56.54% wound closure at day 7, compared to 37% for PHT suspension. Moreover, skin treated with these NPs showed a mature dermis structure with skin appendages, which were absent in all other groups, in addition to the highest collagen content of 63.65%. In conclusion, the use of a bioactive carrier enhanced the healing properties of PHT and allowed the use of relatively low doses of the drug. Our findings suggest that the prepared NPs offer an effective antibiotic-free delivery system for diabetic wound healing applications.

Pressure ulcer following circumferential head dressing

PURPOSE

To report four patients with forehead pressure ulcer (PU) following encircling head dressing and review the literature.

METHODS

Uneventful endoscopic forehead lift procedure was performed with moderate skin elevation in three patients. Left upper eyelid crease incision was made to remove the sub-brow dermoid cyst uneventfully in one patient. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Mixed topical antibiotic and steroid ointments were placed on the incision sites before putting the encircling forehead dressing (using gauze and elastic bandage). The dressing was then removed on the first postoperative examination.

RESULTS

Forehead and eyebrow PUs were observed on the first follow-up visit (16-72 h) after removing the dressing. Patients were otherwise healthy. They did not have significant pain or burning postoperatively. Management included pressure release, wound debridement, daily dressing, topical antibiotic and steroid, and silicone-based anti-scar cream. None had infected ulcer and all except one ended up with atrophic scar in the last follow-up (2-14 months). External pressure and shearing forces were assumed to be the main causative factors, even though reperfusion injury could contribute in the development of PU.

CONCLUSION

Encircling head dressing can cause PU and result in scar formation in healthy immunocompetent patients. If there is a low risk of postoperative hematoma, encircling dressing should be avoided. Early loosening of the dressing and frequent examination of the skin are the best preventive and diagnostic measures. Treatment includes pressure removal, daily debridement, and topical medications.

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

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of topical sucralfate in the management of pressure ulcer (PU) in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

Forty hospitalized patients with stage II PU were included in this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and were randomly divided into 2 groups receiving either sucralfate gel or placebo, on a daily basis. The patients were visited every day for 14 days, the ulcer was evaluated using the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) and changes to the measured scores over time were used as an indicator of wound healing.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in any of the demographic characteristics between both groups. Both of the interventions reduced the average PUSH score, and at the end of the trial, all but 2 patients were healed. One in each group discontinued the trial because of exacerbation of the ulcer. No significant between-group difference in the average PUSH score reduction was observed (6.36 ± 2.11 vs. 5.89 ± 1.41, P = 0.42). Although the average healing time was less in the sucralfate group (6.05 ± 2.17 vs. 7.78 ± 3.42), the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Sucralfate gel does not improve healing of PU compared with placebo.

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. 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 dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016 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 searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, 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 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.

Topical phenytoin for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are common in clinical practice and pose a significant health problem worldwide. Apart from causing suffering to patients, they also result in longer hospital stays and increase the cost of health care. A variety of methods are used for treating pressure ulcers, including pressure relief, patient repositioning, biophysical strategies, nutritional supplementation, debridement, topical negative pressure, and local treatments including dressings, ointments and creams such as bacitracin, silver sulphadiazine, neomycin, and phenytoin. Phenytoin is a drug more commonly used in the treatment of epilepsy, but may play an important role in accelerating ulcer healing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical phenytoin on the rate of healing of pressure ulcers of any grade, in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2016, we searched the following electronic databases to identify relevant randomized clinical trials: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We handsearched conference proceedings from the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Wound Management Association and the Tissue Viability Society for all available years. We searched the references of the retrieved trials to identify further relevant trials. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the effects (both benefits and harms) of topical phenytoin on the healing of pressure ulcers of any grade compared with placebo or alternative treatments or no therapy, irrespective of blinding, language, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methodological procedures. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we calculated the mean difference with 95% CI. We rated the quality of the evidence by using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

Three small RCTs met our inclusion criteria and included a total of 148 participants. These compared three treatments with topical phenytoin: hydrocolloid dressings, triple antibiotic ointment and simple dressings. In the three RCTs, 79% of participants had grade II ulcers, and 21% of participants had grade I ulcers; no participants had grade III or IV ulcers. Two RCTs had a high risk of bias overall and the other RCT was at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. Two RCTs had three intervention arms and the other had two intervention arms.Two studies compared topical phenytoin with hydrocolloid dressing (84 participants analysed). The available data suggest that hydrocolloid dressings may improve ulcer healing compared to topical phenytoin (39.3% ulcers healed for phenytoin versus 71.4% ulcers healed for hydrocolloid dressings (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 56 participants, 1 study; low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence twice: once due to serious limitations (high risk of bias) and once due to the small sample size and small number of events. Two studies compared topical phenytoin with simple dressings (81 participants analysed). From the available data, we are uncertain whether topical phenytoin improves ulcer healing compared to simple dressings (39.3% ulcers healed for phenytoin versus 29.6% ulcers healed for the simple dressing (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.78; 55 participants, 1 study; very low quality evidence). This evidence was downgraded once due to serious limitations (high risk of bias) and twice due to the low number of outcome events and resulting wide CI which included the possibility of both increased healing and reduced healing. We therefore considered it to be insufficient to determine the effect of topical phenytoin on ulcer healing. One study compared topical phenytoin with triple antibiotic ointment, however, none of the outcomes of interest to this review were reported. No adverse drug reactions or interactions were detected in any of the three RCTs. Minimal pain was reported in all groups in one trial that compared topical phenytoin with hydrocolloid dressings and triple antibiotic ointment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has considered the available evidence and the result shows that it is uncertain whether topical phenytoin improves ulcer healing for patients with grade I and II pressure ulcers. No adverse events were reported from three small trials and minimal pain was reported in one trial. Therefore, further rigorous, adequately powered RCTs examining the effects of topical phenytoin for treating pressure ulcers, and to report on adverse events, quality of life and costs are necessary.

Comparison of the Effect of Low-Level Laser and Phenytoin Therapy on Skin Wound Healing in Rats

INTRODUCTION

Different modalities have been used to achieve better results in wound healing among which are laser and pharmacological agents. To our knowledge, there is no investigation to compare phenytoin and laser together. In this study, we aimed to evaluate laser and phenytoin efficacy and compare their effect on wound healing.

METHODS

We used 60 rats. The animals were divided into 4 groups, 15 rats in each and each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups for which postoperative evaluation was performed on days 3, 7, and 14. After general anesthesia and back hair shaving of each rat, an excisional wound was made. The wounds in group 2 were treated with 1% phenytoin cream. In group 3, the wounds were irradiated with diode laser. The wounds of group 4 were treated with both phenytoin cream and laser administration. The animals of group 1 served as control. For histopathological evaluation, hematoxylin and eosin staining was used. Polymorphonuclear leucocytes (PMNs), re-epithelization, fibroblasts, new vessels and collagen were evaluated.

RESULTS

Faster reduction in polymorphonuclear cells after 7 and 14 days and more collagen fibers on the third day in laser treated group was statistically significant (P < .05) .The result for the phenytoin treated group were not better than control group. When both laser and phenytoin were used samples showed more collagen fibers on the third day, which was statistically significant (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

It seems that low level laser is effective in skin wound healing and have better results than phenytoin application.

[Scientific production on the applicability of phenytoin in wound healing]

Phenytoin is an anticonvulsant that has been used in wound healing. The objectives of this study were to describe how the scientific production presents the use ofphenytoinas a healing agent and to discuss its applicability in wounds. A literature review and hierarchy analysis of evidence-based practices was performed. Eighteen articles were analyzed that tested the intervention in wounds such as leprosy ulcers, leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, trophic ulcers, war wounds, burns, preparation of recipient graft area, radiodermatitis and post-extraction of melanocytic nevi. Systemic use ofphenytoinin the treatment of fistulas and the hypothesis of topical use in the treatment of vitiligo were found. In conclusion, topical use ofphenytoinis scientifically evidenced. However robust research is needed that supports a protocol for the use ofphenytoinas another option of a healing agent in clinical practice.

Sildenafil in the treatment of pressure ulcer: a randomised clinical trial

Pressure ulcer (PrU)-related hospitalisation and mortality are critical issues in medical and surgical patients. Although animal studies have suggested the beneficial effects of sildenafil on wound healing, related clinical data are lacking. This is the first clinical study that has evaluated the effects of topical sildenafil on PrU healing in human subjects. Enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive topical sildenafil (10%) ointment or placebo daily. Wound healing was assessed visually and photographically by the change in wound score according to two-digit Stirling scale. Decreases in grades of the PrUs were significantly higher in sildenafil group compared with placebo group (P < 0·001). In addition, surface areas of ulcers in sildenafil group were significantly reduced compared to the control group at day 14 of intervention (P = 0·007). It appears that these effects may be mediated by improvement of microvascular reperfusion in the skin and soft tissue. Further study to emphasise the role of topical sildenafil in the prevention or treatment of PrUs in hospitalised patients is required.

Which medical devices and/or local drug should be curatively used, as of 2012, for PU patients? How can granulation and epidermidalization be promoted? Developing French guidelines for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Management of a patient with pressure ulcer sore(s) must associate local and general treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which medical devices other than supports and which treatments may be used for pressure sore healing (granulation tissue and epithelization/epidermidalization) as of 2012.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature querying the databases: PASCAL Biomed, PubMed, and Cochrane library from 2000 through 2010.

RESULTS

Data in the literature on granulation tissue and epithelisation/epidermidalization in pressure sore healing are poor. The level of evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of one modern dressing compared to another has remained low. However, the study data on the interest of hydrocolloid dressing compared with impregnated gases are more significant.

DISCUSSION

Studies with heterogeneous results and populations have shown low power. Meta-analyses are difficult due to the wide range of therapeutic aims. Further clinical studies with adequate methodology are needed prior to elaboration of more specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The use of hydrocolloid dressing may be recommended to improve granulation tissue development and epithelization/epidermidalization in pressure sore (Level B).

Update on Pressure Ulcer Management and Deep Tissue Injury

Objective:

To review recent literature regarding therapeutic management of pressure ulcers and to discuss the potential implications of the newly recognized entity, deep tissue injury (DTI).

Data Sources:

A MEDLINE search was conducted of pressure ulcer therapy published between January 2001 and October 2009. Key search terms included pressure ulcers, deep tissue injury, nutrition, antibiotics, and therapy.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Comparative clinical trials involving pharmacologic agents in the treatment of pressure ulcers and DTI were evaluated. Included trials were those with defined interventions and outcome parameters for wound healing.

Data Synthesis:

Pressure ulcers remain an important issue in the care of elderly and immobilized patients. DTI has been recently added by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel as a separate category in the staging of pressure ulcers. There is currently a lack of consensus on how to identify and treat DTI. but preventive measures typically employed in the management of all pressure ulcers have been recommended. Recent studies on topical phenytoin, silver preparations, and growth factors report benefit in the management of pressure ulcers. However, studies evaluating these treatment approaches often lack the sample size necessary to adequately support recommendations.

Conclusions:

Determining the extent of tissue damage in DTI is currently not possible. Therefore, management recommendations focus on limiting extension of the ulcer stage through preventive strategies. Routine use of topical phenytoin, silver preparations, or growth factors in therapy of pressure ulcers cannot be recommended until more data from rigorously designed studies are available.

The impact of topical phenytoin on recalcitrant neuropathic diabetic foot ulceration

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of topical phenytoin on the healing of recalcitrant neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers in patients with no clinical evidence of ischaemia or infection, and to evaluate its antibacterial effect.

METHOD

Thirty-two patients were enrolled into the study. Topical phenytoin in the form of 2% aerosol powder was applied once daily in addition to the patient's usual treatment (weekly sharp debridement, offloading and use of a gauze dressing) for eight weeks. The primary outcome was change in ulcer area over time, measured by grid tracing. Secondary outcomes were the ability of topical phenytoin to eradicate bacterial isolates, and the occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Topical phenytoin significantly improved healing of recalcitrant neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Baseline wound area was 319.3 + 340.4 mm2, reducing to 286.1 + 341.1 mm2 and 269.1 + 341.2 mm2 after four and eight weeks respectively. However, the overall reduction in ulcer size was only 18.3% + 27.5% and 25.7% + 38.6 % respectively. Topical phenytoin therapy over eight weeks did not eradicate any of the bacterial wound isolates (Staphylococcus spp., Proteus spp. or Pseudomonas spp.). Of the 32 patients evaluated, only eight (25%) achieved more than 50% reduction in ulcer size after eight weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Topical phenytoin can enhance wound healing in recalcitrant neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers, although only one-quarter of patients achieved more than 50% reduction in ulcer size after eight weeks of therapy. Further research is needed to characterise those patients who will satisfactorily respond to such therapy.