| Literature DB >> 28239398 |
Ka-Kit Tsang1, Enid Wai-Yung Kwong2, Tony Shing-Shun To3, Joanne Wai-Yee Chung4, Thomas Kwok-Shing Wong5.
Abstract
Nanocrystalline silver (nAg) and Manuka honey (MH) dressing have increasing popularity for treating diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). This study was an open-label randomized controlled trial with three parallel groups' design in examining the preliminary effectiveness of nAg against MH and conventional dressing in healing DFU in terms of ulcer healing, ulcer infection, and inflammation. 31 participants (11 in the nAg group, 10 in the MH group, and 10 in the convention group) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were enrolled. Wound cleaning, debridement, and topical dressing application were performed according to the group allocation in each visit at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. The results found that the proportions of complete ulcer healing were 81.8%, 50%, and 40% in the nAg, MH, and conventional groups, respectively. The ulcer size reduction rate was potentially higher in the nAg group (97.45%) than the MH group (86.21%) and the conventional group (75.17%). In bacteriology, nAg showed a greater rate of microorganism reduction although it was not significant. To conclude, nAg alginate was potentially superior to MH and conventional dressing in healing diabetic foot ulcer in terms of ulcer size reduction rate.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28239398 PMCID: PMC5296609 DOI: 10.1155/2017/5294890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The CONSORT flow diagram.
Comparison of baseline information on demographics and risk factors among groups.
| nAg | MH | Conventional |
| Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Origin of participants | |||||
| Hospital A | 9 | 7 | 8 | 0.134a | NS |
| Hospital B | 2 | 3 | 0 | ||
| GOPC | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
|
| |||||
| Gender | |||||
| M | 7 | 4 | 7 | 0.433a | NS |
| F | 4 | 6 | 3 | ||
| Age (years) | 63.36 | 65.60 | 66.1 | 0.948b | NS |
| Serum albumin level (mmol/ L) | 32.55 | 33.80 | 37.40 | 0.147b | NS |
| Ambulatory status | |||||
| Ambulatory | 11 | 10 | 10 | NA | NA |
|
| |||||
| Duration of diabetes (years) | 14.82 | 13.30 | 15.20 | 0.921b | NS |
| HbA1c level (mmol/ L) | 8.27 | 8.30 | 7.59 | 0.574b | NS |
| Ankle brachial index (ABI) | 1.06 | 1.03 | 1.13 | 0.944b | NS |
| Heart disease | |||||
| Yes | 4 | 5 | 6 | 0.604a | NS |
| No | 7 | 5 | 4 | ||
| PAD | |||||
| Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | >0.9999a | NS |
| No | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||
|
| |||||
| Ulcer location on foot | |||||
| Toe amputation | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0.391a | NS |
| Dorsum | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Plantar | 0 | 1 | 3 | ||
| Plantar to dorsum | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Medial malleolus | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Anteromedial ankle | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
| Lateral malleolus | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Heel | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Ulcer chronicity∧ | |||||
| Acute | 7 | 5 | 6 | 0.901a | NS |
| Chronic | 4 | 5 | 4 | ||
| Ulcer duration (weeks) | 11.45 | 12.80 | 14.70 | 0.401b | NS |
| Ulcer size (cm2) | 8.68 | 10.98 | 8.28 | 0.495b | NS |
| University of Texas (UT) classification Ulcer grade (depth) | |||||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.867a | NS |
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| 2 | 6 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SWESS (score of 0–30) | 13.27 | 14.40 | 12.27 | 0.195b | NS |
| Clinical signs of infection | |||||
| None | 7 | 3 | 6 | 0.498a | NS |
| Mild | 3 | 6 | 3 | ||
| Moderate | 1 | 1 | 1 |
aFisher's exact test.
bKruskal-Wallis test.
Not significant.
Not available.
Significant (p ≤ 0.05).
∧Chronic wound was defined as wound duration ≥ 12 weeks.
Figure 2Clinical photos for complete ulcer healing.
Figure 3Cumulative healing incidence under the intention-to-treat principle.
Figure 4Ulcer size reduction rate in each group.
Gradients of the nAg and MH groups on the change in ulcer size reduction.
| Group | Reference group | Gradient |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| nAg | Conventional | 20.537 | 0.011 |
| MH | Conventional | 9.337 | 0.311 |
| nAg | MH | 2.883 | 0.000 |
Significant (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5Average number of microorganisms among groups.
The presence of biofilm at different observation points among the three groups.
| Week | Biofilm | Treatment group |
| Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nAg | MH | Conventional | ||||
|
| Yes | 6 | 6 | 3 | 0.439 | NSa |
| No | 5 | 4 | 7 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 6 | 6 | 6 | >0.9999 | NSa |
| No | 5 | 4 | 4 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 9 | 7 | 5 | 0.477 | NSa |
| No | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 0.828 | NSa |
| No | 4 | 3 | 4 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 4 | 4 | 3 | >0.9999 | NSa |
| No | 5 | 5 | 6 | |||
| NAb | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 2 | 3 | 2 | >0.9999 | NSa |
| No | 5 | 4 | 4 | |||
| NAb | 4 | 3 | 4 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.879 | NSa |
| No | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| NAb | 7 | 5 | 4 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0.271 | NSa |
| No | 0 | 2 | 3 | |||
| NAb | 9 | 5 | 4 | |||
NSa: not significant.
NAb: not available (DFU healed).
Clinical signs of wound infection at different observation points among the three groups.
| Week | Infection status | Treatment group |
| Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nAg | MH | Conventional | ||||
|
| Yes | 7 | 3 | 6 | 0.296 | NSa |
| No | 4 | 7 | 4 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 10 | 6 | 9 | 0.262 | NSa |
| No | 1 | 4 | 1 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 10 | 9 | 8 | 0.825 | NSa |
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 10 | 8 | 9 | 0.825 | NSa |
| No | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| NAb | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 8 | 8 | 9 | >0.9999 | NSa |
| No | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| NAb | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 6 | 7 | 6 | >0.9999 | NSa |
| No | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| NAb | 4 | 3 | 4 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 3 | 5 | 6 | 0.496 | NSa |
| No | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| NAb | 7 | 5 | 4 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| Yes | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0.150 | NSa |
| No | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| NAb | 9 | 5 | 4 | |||
NSa: not significant.
NAb: not available (DFU healed).
Figure 6Mean concentration profile of total protein among the three groups.
Figure 7Mean concentration profile of MMP-9 among the three groups.
Gradients of the nAg and MH groups on the change of MMP-9 concentration.
| Group | Reference group | Gradient |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| nAg | Conventional | 1.263 | 0.027 |
| MH | Conventional | 1.507 | 0.000 |
| nAg | MH | −0.427 | 0.098 |
Significant (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 8Mean concentration profile of the ratio of MMP-9 and total protein among the three groups.
Figure 9Mean concentration profile of TNF-α among the three groups.
Figure 10Mean concentration profile of IL-1α among the three groups.
Adverse event and interventions.
| Group | Adverse event | Intervention |
|---|---|---|
| nAg | Calf swelling | Oral antibiotics |
|
| ||
| MH | Generalized blister | Oral steroid and antibiotics prescribed in the family clinic |
|
| ||
| Conventional | Lung carcinoma | Referred to oncology department and patient discontinued from the study |
| Chest infection | Oral antibiotics | |
| Blisters near the ulcer due to friction on walking | Activity restriction | |
| Severe wound infection | Admission for intravenous antibiotics and patient discontinued from the study | |