Frances R Henshaw1, Thyra Bolton2, Vanessa Nube2, Anita Hood2, Danielle Veldhoen2, Louise Pfrunder2, Genevieve L McKew3, Colin Macleod3, Susan V McLennan1, Stephen M Twigg4. 1. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 2. Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Diabetes Centre, Department of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: stephen.twigg@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
AIMS: Propolis is a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory bee derived protectant resin. We have previously reported that topically applied propolis reduces inflammation and improves cutaneous ulcer healing in diabetic rodents. The aim of this study was to determine if propolis shows efficacy in a pilot study of human diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) healing and if it is well tolerated. MATERIALS: Serial consenting subjects (n=24) with DFU ≥4 weeks' duration had topical propolis applied at each clinic review for 6 weeks. Post-debridement wound fluid was analyzed for viable bacterial count and pro-inflammatory MMP-9 activity. Ulcer healing data were compared with a matched control cohort of n=84 with comparable DFU treated recently at the same center. RESULTS: Ulcer area was reduced by a mean 41% in the propolis group compared with 16% in the control group at week 1 (P<0.001), and by 63 vs. 44% at week 3, respectively (P<0.05). In addition, 10 vs. 2% (P<0.001), then 19 vs. 12% (P<0.05) of propolis treated vs. control ulcers had fully healed by weeks 3 and 7, respectively. Post-debridement wound fluid active MMP-9 was significantly reduced, by 18.1 vs. 2.8% week 3 from baseline in propolis treated ulcers vs. controls (P<0.001), as were bacterial counts (P<0.001). No adverse effects from propolis were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Topical propolis is a well-tolerated therapy for wound healing and this pilot in human DFU indicates for the first time that it may enhance wound closure in this setting when applied weekly. A multi-site randomized controlled of topical propolis now appears to be warranted in diabetic foot ulcers.
AIMS: Propolis is a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory bee derived protectant resin. We have previously reported that topically applied propolis reduces inflammation and improves cutaneous ulcer healing in diabetic rodents. The aim of this study was to determine if propolis shows efficacy in a pilot study of humandiabetic foot ulcer (DFU) healing and if it is well tolerated. MATERIALS: Serial consenting subjects (n=24) with DFU ≥4 weeks' duration had topical propolis applied at each clinic review for 6 weeks. Post-debridement wound fluid was analyzed for viable bacterial count and pro-inflammatory MMP-9 activity. Ulcer healing data were compared with a matched control cohort of n=84 with comparable DFU treated recently at the same center. RESULTS: Ulcer area was reduced by a mean 41% in the propolis group compared with 16% in the control group at week 1 (P<0.001), and by 63 vs. 44% at week 3, respectively (P<0.05). In addition, 10 vs. 2% (P<0.001), then 19 vs. 12% (P<0.05) of propolis treated vs. control ulcers had fully healed by weeks 3 and 7, respectively. Post-debridement wound fluid active MMP-9 was significantly reduced, by 18.1 vs. 2.8% week 3 from baseline in propolis treated ulcers vs. controls (P<0.001), as were bacterial counts (P<0.001). No adverse effects from propolis were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Topical propolis is a well-tolerated therapy for wound healing and this pilot in human DFU indicates for the first time that it may enhance wound closure in this setting when applied weekly. A multi-site randomized controlled of topical propolis now appears to be warranted in diabetic foot ulcers.
Authors: Angelika Sabine Sandholzer-Yilmaz; Eric Sven Kroeber; Wondimu Ayele; T Frese; Eva Johanna Kantelhardt; Susanne Unverzagt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar; Said Abdelmonem; Ahmed A Abdelsameea; Mohamed AlShawadfy; Kamal El-Kashishy Journal: Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Paweł Olczyk; Pawel Ramos; Katarzyna Komosinska-Vassev; Lukasz Mencner; Krystyna Olczyk; Barbara Pilawa Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Agnieszka Machorowska-Pieniążek; Małgorzata Skucha-Nowak; Anna Mertas; Marta Tanasiewicz; Iwona Niedzielska; Tadeusz Morawiec; Stefan Baron Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 2.629