| Literature DB >> 35268320 |
Antonio Casado-Díaz1,2,3, Manuel La Torre3,4, Feliciano Priego-Capote2,3,5, José Verdú-Soriano6, José Luis Lázaro-Martínez7, Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas2,8, Miriam Berenguer Pérez6, Isaac Tunez3,4.
Abstract
The prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing due to the population aging and associated pathologies, such as diabetes. These ulcers have an important socio-economic impact. Thus, it is necessary to design new products for their treatment with an adequate cost/effectiveness ratio. Among these products are amorphous hydrogels. Their composition can be manipulated to provide a favorable environment for ulcer healing. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel multifunctional amorphous hydrogel (EHO-85), containing Olea europaea leaf extract, designed to enhance the wound healing process. For this purpose, its moistening ability, antioxidant capacity, effect on pH in the wound bed of experimental rats, and the effect on wound healing in a murine model of impaired wound healing were assessed. EHO-85 proved to be a remarkable moisturizer and its application in a rat skin wound model showed a significant antioxidant effect, decreasing lipid peroxidation in the wound bed. EHO-85 also decreased the pH of the ulcer bed from day 1. In addition, in mice (BKS. Cg-m +/+ Leprdb) EHO-85 treatment showed superior wound healing rates compared to hydrocolloid dressing. In conclusion, EHO-85 can speed up the closure of hard-to-heal wounds due to its multifunctional properties that are able to modulate the wound microenvironment, mainly through its remarkable effect on reactive oxygen species, pH, and moistening regulation.Entities:
Keywords: EHO-85; Olea europaea leaf extract; ROS; antioxidant; hydrogel; moistening; pH; preclinical; wound healing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268320 PMCID: PMC8911171 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051229
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Liquid donation capacity rating of the hydrogels according to standard BS EN 13726-1:2002.
| Fluid Affinity (Donation) | Type |
|---|---|
| 0–5 | A |
| >5–10 | B |
| >10–15 | C |
| >15–20 | D |
| >20–25 | E |
Liquid donation capacity of the hydrogels (gelatine 35%), expressed as means ± standard deviations in the samples (n = 4).
| Hydrogel | (%) Average Decrease of Gel Weight | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Askina® Gel | 19.0 ± 2.0 | D |
| Normlgel® | 13.0 ± 3.0 | C |
| Purilon® Gel | 12.5 ± 0.3 | C |
| Intrasite® Gel | 6.0 ± 2.0 | B |
| Nu-Gel® | 9.0 ± 3.0 | B |
| EHO-85 | 15.2 ± 0.9 | D |
Effect on oxidative stress in the wound of animals treated with EHO-85 hydrogel containing OELE vs. EHO-85 hydrogel formulation without extract, measured by the effect on lipid peroxidation. Results are shown as the mean µM (MDA + 4HDA) /mg protein ± standard deviation of four animals per group.
| µM (MDA + 4HDA)/mg Protein | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 48 h | 96 h | |
| EHO-85 without 0.1% OELE | 0.0097 ± 0.0005 | 0.0134 ± 0.0008 | |
| EHO-85 hydrogel | 0.0052 ± 0.0003 | 0.0073 ± 0.0004 | |
Effect of the presence of OELE on the GSH/GSSG ratio obtained from the wounds of animals treated for 48 and 96 h with EHO-85 hydrogel containing OELE vs. the EHO-85 hydrogel formulation without extract.
| GSH/GSSG | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 48 h | 96 h | |
| EHO-85 without 0.1% OELE | 0.382 ± 0.093 | 0.743 ± 0.050 | |
| EHO-85 | 0.346 ± 0.034 | 1.195 ± 0.174 | |
| ns | |||
Figure 1Effect of EHO-85 treatment on wound pH in Wistar rats. The results are shown as means ± standard deviations. * p < 0.05 compared to control, # p < 0.05 compared to t = 0 days (before treatment).
Figure 2Wound area reduction. The results are shown as means of the animals in each group (n = 4) ± standard deviations. ** p < 0.01 compared to control group D (untreated).