Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Swetha Menon NP, Kamaraj M, Anish Sharmila M, Govarthanan M
    Int J Biol Macromol, 2024 Jan;256(Pt 2):128499.
    PMID: 38048932 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128499
    Wounds were considered as defects in the tissues of the human skin and wound healing is said to be a tedious process as there are possibilities of infection or inflammation due to microorganisms. Modern moisture-retentive wound dressing (MMRWD) is opening a new window toward wound therapy. It comprises different types of wound dressing that has classified based on their functionality. Selective polysaccharide-polypeptide fiber composite materials such as hydrogels, hydrocolloids, hydro fibers, transparent-film dressing, and alginate dressing are discussed in this review as a type of MMRWD. The highlight of this polysaccharide and polypeptide based MMRWD is that it supports and enhances the healing of different types of wounds by moisture absorption thus preventing infection. This study has given enlightenment on the application of selected polysaccharide and polypeptide based MMRWD that enhances wound healing actions still it has been observed that the composite wound healing dressing is more effective than the single one. The nano-sized materials (synthetic nano drugs and phyto drugs) were found to increase the efficiency of healing action while coated in the wound dressing material. Future research is required to find out more possibilities of the different composite types of wound dressing in the healing action.
    Matched MeSH terms: Alginates/therapeutic use
  2. Hussain Z, Thu HE, Shuid AN, Katas H, Hussain F
    Curr Drug Targets, 2018;19(5):527-550.
    PMID: 28676002 DOI: 10.2174/1389450118666170704132523
    BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are the chronic, non-healing complications of diabetic mellitus which compels a significant burden to the patients and the healthcare system. Peripheral vascular disease, diabetic neuropathy, and abnormal cellular and cytokine/chemokine activity are among the prime players which exacerbate the severity and prevent wound repair. Unlike acute wounds, DFUs impose a substantial challenge to the conventional wound dressings and demand the development of novel and advanced wound healing modalities. In general, an ideal wound dressing should provide a moist wound environment, offer protection from secondary infections, eliminate wound exudate and stimulate tissue regeneration.

    OBJECTIVE: To date, numerous conventional wound dressings are employed for the management of DFUs but there is a lack of absolute and versatile choice. The current review was therefore aimed to summarize and critically discuss the available evidences related to pharmaceutical and therapeutic viability of polymer-based dressings for the treatment of DFUs.

    RESULTS: A versatile range of naturally-originated polymers including chitosan (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), cellulose, alginate, dextran, collagen, gelatin, elastin, fibrin and silk fibroin have been utilized for the treatment of DFUs. These polymers have been used in the form of hydrogels, films, hydrocolloids, foams, membranes, scaffolds, microparticles, and nanoparticles. Moreover, the wound healing viability and clinical applicability of various mutually modified, semi-synthetic or synthetic polymers have also been critically discussed.

    CONCLUSION: In summary, this review enlightens the most recent developments in polymer-based wound dressings with special emphasis on advanced polymeric biomaterials, innovative therapeutic strategies and delivery approaches for the treatment of DFUs.

    Matched MeSH terms: Alginates/therapeutic use
  3. Deraman MA, Abdul Hafidz MI, Lawenko RM, Ma ZF, Wong MS, Coyle C, et al.
    Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2020 06;51(11):1014-1021.
    PMID: 32343001 DOI: 10.1111/apt.15746
    BACKGROUND: Late-night supper increases the risk of postprandial reflux from the acid pocket especially in obesity. An alginate-based, raft-forming medication may be useful for obese patients with GERD.

    AIMS: To compare the efficacy of Gaviscon Advance (Reckitt Benckiser, UK) and a non-alginate antacid in post-supper suppression of the acid pocket and post-prandial reflux among obese participants.

    METHODS: Participants underwent 48 h wireless and probe-based pH-metry recording of the acid pocket and lower oesophagus, respectively, and were randomised to single post-supper (10 pm) dose of either Gaviscon Advance or a non-alginate antacid on the second night. Primary outcomes were suppression of median pH of acid pocket and lower oesophagus, measured every 10-minutes post-supper for 1 h. Secondary outcomes were suppression of % time pH 

    Matched MeSH terms: Alginates/therapeutic use*
  4. Lai NM, Taylor JE, Tan K, Choo YM, Ahmad Kamar A, Muhamad NA
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016 Mar 23;3:CD011082.
    PMID: 27007217 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011082.pub2
    BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) provide secured venous access in neonates. Antimicrobial dressings applied over the CVC sites have been proposed to reduce catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) by decreasing colonisation. However, there may be concerns on the local and systemic adverse effects of these dressings in neonates.

    OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention.

    SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015.

    SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

    MAIN RESULTS: Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group.

    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.

    Matched MeSH terms: Alginates/therapeutic use
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links