Search

The major populations at risk for developing pressure ulcers are older adults who have multiple risk factors that increase their vulnerability, people who are critically ill and those with spinal cord injury/disease. The reported prevalence of pressure ulcers in the United States is 2.5 million. However, this estimate is derived from acute care facilities and does not include people who are living at home or in nursing facilities. Despite the implementation of hospital and facility‐based preventive measures, the incidence of pressure ulcers has not decreased in decades. In addition to the burden of pain, infection and death, it is estimated that hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers cost the health system $26.8 billion annually with over 50% of the cost attributed to treating Stage 3 and 4 pressure injuries. Thus, it is critical to examine the literature and develop guidelines that will improve the outcomes of this complex and costly condition. This guideline update is a compendium of the best available evidence for the treatment of Pressure Ulcers published since the last update in 2015 and includes a new section based on changing demographics entitled 'Palliative wound care for seriously ill patients with pressure ulcers'. The overall goal of the Wound Healing Society Guideline project is to present clear, concise and commercial free guidelines that clinicians can use to guide care, that researchers can use to develop studies that will improve treatment and that both clinicians and researchers can use to understand the gaps in our knowledge base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2006 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry emphasizes wound closure as the primary outcome for clinical trials in wound healing. Wound care professionals understand that complete wound healing is not always achievable when evaluating new treatments. FDA, Association for the Advancement of Wound Care, and Wound Healing Society are working collaboratively to identify scientifically achievable, clinically relevant, and patient‐centered endpoints with sufficient support to serve as primary outcomes for clinical trials. The Opinion Survey from People with Wounds presented here addresses an important but understudied issue: the gap between clinician, healthcare insurance companies, government agencies, and patient perspectives regarding clinically meaningful and scientifically achievable primary endpoints for wound care. The survey, adapted from the clinician survey with adjustment for health literacy, was pilot tested and revised based on a limited number of patients in a single clinic. After central IRB approval, the on‐line survey was administered in English and Spanish and submitted anonymously to a server with the cooperation of multiple wound clinics and societies. Four hundred and thirty‐eight patients and caregivers from across the United States responded over a 10‐month period. Based on this survey, the most valuable clinical endpoints were reduced infection, recurrence, and amputation. The most valuable quality of life outcomes were increased independence, reduced social isolation, and pain. The top five endpoints in terms of usefulness for measuring clinical trial success were time to heal, wound size, infection, recurrence, and pain. Narrative responses from wound patients emphasized the inability to perform activities of daily living and pain as major factors that impacted their daily lives. Engagement of patients in clinical trials and evaluation of potential treatments is critical to improving wound care. This survey provides insight into the needs of patients with wounds and provides a roadmap for structuring future clinical trials to better meet those needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present status of clinical leg ulcer healing research was reviewed by 25 experts over 2 days on September 28 and 29, 2015. Multiple clinical effectiveness reviews were presented suggesting that published clinical wound healing research often does not meet present (2015) evidence based standards. Specific areas requiring remediation were highlighted and approaches to overcoming existing challenges were proposed. Participants using anonymous voting technology developed an action plan to resolve perceived deficiencies. Statements were accepted if 75% of participants agreed. Older patients with a high frequency of comorbid conditions posed particular difficulties in designing clinical research protocols and better diagnostic categorization is necessary A standardized model template for collecting information about diagnosis and evaluation of the effect of interventions on healing of all types of leg ulcers was considered a high priority. Such a model template could be modified depending on the specific etiology of the leg ulcers. Generally agreed on quantifiable standards to establish degree of morbidity was considered a high priority. There was universal agreement that sources of funding and conflicts of interest needed to be disclosed in presentations and all publications. All clinical research studies should be registered with appropriate authorities. There was substantial enthusiasm for a clinical research network with quality standards for membership and an advisory research core available to investigators. Such a network should be funded and actively managed to insure long-term viability. The governance of such an entity needs to be established by the wound care community. The present trend to integrate patients into the clinical research process was endorsed and there was enthusiasm to develop patient advocacy for wound healing research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults are more likely to have chronic wounds than younger people, and the effect of chronic wounds on quality of life is particularly profound in this population. Wound healing slows with age, but the basic biology underlying chronic wounds and the influence of age-associated changes on wound healing are poorly understood. Most studies have used in vitro approaches and various animal models, but observed changes translate poorly to human healing conditions. The effect of age and accompanying multimorbidity on the effectiveness of existing and emerging treatment approaches for chronic wounds is also unknown, and older adults tend to be excluded from randomized clinical trials. Poorly defined outcomes and variables; lack of standardization in data collection; and variations in the definition, measurement, and treatment of wounds also hamper clinical studies. The Association of Specialty Professors, in conjunction with the National Institute on Aging and the Wound Healing Society, held a workshop, summarized in this article, to explore the current state of knowledge and research challenges, engage investigators across disciplines, and identify research questions to guide future study of age-associated changes in chronic wound healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with wounds bear significant clinical, personal, and economic burdens yet complete wound healing is the only United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized primary clinical trial end point. The overall goal of this project is to work with FDA to expand the list of acceptable primary end points, recognizing that new and innovative treatments, devices, and drugs may not have complete healing as the focus. Part 1 of the project surveyed 628 wound care experts who identified and content-validated 15 end points most relevant to clinical practice and benefitting patients' lives as primary outcomes in clinical trials. Part 2 is focused on critical appraisal of the evidence in the wound care literature supporting FDA criteria to qualify these 15 end points as primary end points in clinical trials. Further research involved systematic review of the literature regarding the most promising end points. Forty volunteer, interdisciplinary, wound healing experts in fields related to the end points compiled evidence from systematic MEDLINE searches and society databases supporting the FDA criteria of reliability, clinical construct validity, capacity to detect concurrent or longitudinal change, and responder analysis. The search revealed 485 references involving over 462,000 subjects supporting FDA-required parameters for all 15 end points More than 50 references supported FDA-required parameters qualifying the following outcomes for use in clinical trials supporting interventions for FDA clearance: Pain reduction, Physical function and ambulation, Infection reduction, Time to heal, and Percent wound area reduction in 4-8 weeks. Among these, only Time to heal is currently recognized by the FDA as a primary wound outcome in clinical trials. These results suggest that wound science is already serving patients and professionals by improving these content-validated outcomes that merit regulatory consideration., (© 2018 by the Wound Healing Society.)

Wounds that exhibit delayed healing add extraordinary clinical, economic, and personal burdens to patients, as well as to increasing financial costs to health systems. New interventions designed to ease such burdens for patients with cancer, renal, or ophthalmologic conditions are often cleared for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using multiple endpoints but the requirement of complete healing as a primary endpoint for wound products impedes FDA clearance of interventions that can provide other clinical or patient-centered benefits for persons with wounds. A multidisciplinary group of wound experts undertook an initiative, in collaboration with the FDA, to identify and content validate supporting FDA criteria for qualifying wound endpoints relevant to clinical practice (CP) and patient-centered outcomes (PCO) as primary outcomes in clinical trials. As part of the initiative, a research study was conducted involving 628 multidisciplinary expert wound clinicians and researchers from 4 different groups: the interdisciplinary core advisory team; attendees of the Spring 2015 Symposium on Advanced Wound Care (SAWC); clinicians employed by a national network of specialty clinics focused on comprehensive wound care; and Association for the Advancement of Wound Care (AAWC) and Wound Healing Society (WHS) members who had not previously completed the survey. The online survey assessed 28 literature-based wound care endpoints for their relevance and importance to clinical practice and clinical research. Fifteen of the endpoints were evaluated for their relevance to improving quality of life. Twenty-two endpoints had content validity indexes (CVI) ≥ 0.75, and 15 were selected as meriting potential inclusion as additional endpoints for FDA approval of future wound care interventions. This study represents an important first step in identifying and validating new measurable wound care endpoints for clinical research and practice and for regulatory evaluation., (© 2017 by the Wound Healing Society.)

The incidence of chronic wounds is increased among older adults, and the impact of chronic wounds on quality of life is particularly profound in this population. It is well established that wound healing slows with age. However, the basic biology underlying chronic wounds and the influence of age-associated changes on wound healing are poorly understood. Most studies have used in vitro approaches and various animal models, but observed changes translate poorly to human healing conditions. The impact of age and accompanying multi-morbidity on the effectiveness of existing and emerging treatment approaches for chronic wounds is also unknown, and older adults tend to be excluded from randomized clinical trials. Poorly defined outcomes and variables, lack of standardization in data collection, and variations in the definition, measurement, and treatment of wounds also hamper clinical studies. The Association of Specialty Professors, in conjunction with the National Institute on Aging and the Wound Healing Society, held a workshop, summarized in this paper, to explore the current state of knowledge and research challenges, engage investigators across disciplines, and identify key research questions to guide future study of age-associated changes in chronic wound healing., (© 2014 by the Wound Healing Society.)

Pressure ulcers are one of the most common causes of morbidity, mortality and rehospitalization for those living with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Literature examining risk and recurrence of pressure ulcers (PrUs) has primarily focused on the nursing home elderly who do not have SCI. More than 200 factors that increase PrU risk have been identified. Yet unlike the elderly who incur pressure ulcers in nursing homes or when hospitalized, most persons with SCI develop their pressure ulcers as outpatients, while residing in the community. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides medical care for a large number of persons with chronic SCI. Included in the VHA SCI model of chronic disease management is the provision of an annual Comprehensive Preventive Health Evaluation, a tool that has potential to identify individuals at high risk for PrUs. This research was motivated by the clinical observation that some individuals appear to be protected from developing PrUs despite apparently 'risky' behaviors while others develop PrUs despite vigilant use of the currently known preventative measures. There is limited literature regarding protective factors and specific risk factors that reduce PrU occurrence in the community dwelling person with chronic SCI have not been delineated. The purpose of this study is to examine the preliminary hypothesis that there are biological and/or psychosocial factors that increase or reduce vulnerability to PrUs among persons with SCI. A limited number of refined hypotheses will be generated for testing in a prospective fashion. A retrospective cross-sectional survey of 119 randomly selected Veterans with SCI undergoing the Comprehensive Health Prevention Evaluation during the year 2009 was performed. Factors that differed between patients with 0, 1 or ⩾2 PrUs were identified and stratified, with an emphasis on modifiable risk factors. Three hypotheses generated from this study warrant further investigation: (1) cumulative smoking history increases the risk of PrUs independent of co-morbidities, (2) being moderately overweight, BMI>25, with or without spasticity, is a modifiable factor that may be protective and (3) increased use of a caregiver does not reduce PrU risk. Prospective studies that focus on these hypotheses will lead to evidence-based risk assessment tools and customized interventions to prevent PrUs in persons with SCI in the outpatient setting., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the changes in gene expression of near-infrared light therapy in a model of impaired wound healing., Background Data: Light-Emitting Diodes (LED), originally developed for NASA plant growth experiments in space, show promise for delivering light deep into tissues of the body to promote wound healing and human tissue growth. In this paper we present the effects of LED treatment on wounds in a genetically diabetic mouse model., Materials and Methods: Polyvinyl acetal (PVA) sponges were subcutaneously implanted in the dorsum of BKS.Cg-m +/+ Lepr(db) mice. LED treatments were given once daily, and at the sacrifice day, the sponges, incision line and skin over the sponges were harvested and used for RNA extraction. The RNA was subsequently analyzed by cDNA array., Results: Our studies have revealed certain tissue regenerating genes that were significantly upregulated upon LED treatment when compared to the untreated sample. Integrins, laminin, gap junction proteins, and kinesin superfamily motor proteins are some of the genes involved during regeneration process. These are some of the genes that were identified upon gene array experiments with RNA isolated from sponges from the wound site in mouse with LED treatment., Conclusion: We believe that the use of NASA light-emitting diodes (LED) for light therapy will greatly enhance the natural wound healing process, and more quickly return the patient to a preinjury/illness level of activity. This work is supported and managed through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center-SBIR Program.