Methods: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included 244 patients, of whom 86 were treated with chitosan derivative film and 84 with hydrocolloid. The percentage of epithelisation, as well as patient comfort, clinical signs, and patient convenience in application and removal of the dressings were assessed.
Results: The primary outcome of this study was the percentage of epithelisation. Except for race (p = 0.04), there were no significant differences between groups in sex, age, antibiotic usage, or initial wound size (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean epithelisation percentage between groups (p = 0.29). Patients using chitosan derivative film experienced more pain during removal of dressing than those in the hydrocolloid group (p = 0.007). The chitosan derivative film group showed less exudate (p = 0.036) and less odour (p = 0.024) than the control group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of adherence, ease of removal, wound drainage, erythema, itchiness, pain, and tenderness. No oedema or localised warmth was observed during the study.
Conclusion: This study concluded that chitosan derivative film is equivalent to hydrocolloid dressing and can be an option in the management of superficial and abrasion wounds.
Clinical trial No: NMRR-11-948-10565.
Methods: The effects of independent variables (poloxamer 407 and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) concentration) on various dependent variables (gelling capacity, pH and viscosity) were investigated by using 32 factorial design and organoleptic evaluation was done with descriptive analysis.
Results: The optimized formula of chloramphenicol in situ gel yielded 9 variations of poloxamer 407 and HPMC bases composition in % w/v as follows, F1 (5; 0.45), F2 (7.5; 0.45), F3 (10; 0.45), F4 (5; 0.725), F5 (7.5; 0.725), F6 (10; 0.725), F7 (5; 1), F8 (7.5; 1), F9 (10; 1). The results indicated that the organoleptic, pH, and gelling capacity parameters matched all formulas (F1-F9), however, the viscosity parameter only matched F3, F6, F8, and F9. Based on factorial design, F6 had the best formula with desirability value of 0.54, but the design recommended that formula with the composition bases of poloxamer 407 and HPMC at the ratio of 8.16 % w/v and 0.77 % w/v, respectively, was the optimum formula with a desirability value of 0.69.
Conclusion: All formulas have met the Indonesian pharmacopoeia requirements based on the physical evaluation, especially formula 6 (F6), which was supported by the result of factorial design analysis.