English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Microbial biofilms have become increasingly recognized as a cause of wound chronicity. There are several topical antimicrobial wound care products available for use; however, their effectiveness has routinely been demonstrated with planktonic microorganisms. There is no target reference value for antimicrobial effectiveness of wound care products in biofilm models. In addition, data on antimicrobial activity of products in biofilm models are scattered across many test methods in a variety of studies. The aim of this work is to directly compare commercial products containing the commonly used topical antimicrobial agents iodine, silver, polyhexamethylene biguanide, octenidine, hypochlorous acid, benzalkonium chloride, and a surfactant‐based topical containing poloxamer 188. Five different in vitro biofilm models of varied complexity were used, incorporating several bacterial pathogens such as  Staphylococcus ,  Enterococcus ,  Streptococcus ,  Pseudomonas ,  Acinetobacter ,  Klebsiella , and  Enterobacter . The fungal pathogens   Candida albicans   and  Candida auris  were also evaluated. A multispecies bacterial biofilm model was also used to evaluate the products. Additionally,   C. albicans   was used in combination with   S. aureus   and   P. aeruginosa   in a multikingdom version of the polymicrobial biofilm model. Statistically significant differences in antimicrobial performance were observed between treatments in each model and changing microbial growth conditions or combinations of organisms resulted in significant performance differences for some treatments. The iodine and benzalkonium chloride‐containing products were overall the most effective in vitro and were then selected for in vivo evaluation in an infected immunocompromised murine model. Unexpectedly, the iodine product was statistically ( P  > .05) no different than the untreated control, while the benzalkonium chloride containing product significantly ( P  < .05) reduced the biofilm compared to untreated control. This body of work demonstrates the importance of not only evaluating antimicrobial wound care products in biofilm models but also the importance of using several different models to gain a comprehensive understanding of products' effectiveness.

A multimodel regime for evaluating effectiveness of antimicrobial wound care products in microbial biofilms