The Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds: A NICE medical technology guidance

As part of its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited a manufacturer to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings and the final NICE guidance issued. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Debrisoft® to debride wounds compared with saline and gauze, hydrogel and larvae. Separate analyses were conducted for applications in home and applications in a clinic setting. The analysis took an UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. It incorporated the costs of the technologies and supplementary technologies (such as dressings) and the costs of their application by a district nurse. The sponsor concluded that Debrisoft® was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Debrisoft® remained cost saving in most analyses and savings ranged from £77 to £222 per patient compared with hydrogel, from £97 to £347 compared with saline and gauze, and from £180 to £484 compared with larvae depending on the assumptions included in the analysis and whether debridement took place in a home or clinic setting. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness, in particular a lack of comparative studies and that the effectiveness data for the comparators came from studies reporting different clinical endpoints compared with Debrisoft®. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft® and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17).The Birmingham and Brunel Consortium is funded by NICE to act as an External Assessment Centre for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme

Characterisation of baseline microbiological and host factors in an inception cohort of people with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention reveals circulating IL-6 levels as a potential predictive biomarker of healing [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Background: More than 2 million people per year are treated for surgical wounds in the UK. Over a quarter of these wounds are estimated to heal by secondary intention (from the “bottom up”) resulting in further complications and requiring increased healthcare resources. Identification of microbiological or host biomarkers that can predict healing outcomes may help to optimize the management of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. However, the microbial and host factor heterogeneity amongst this diverse population is completely unexplored. Methods: We demonstrate feasibility of determining presence and levels of wound microbes and systemic host factors in an inception cohort of 54 people presenting with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention, who were subsequently followed-up for a period of 12-21 months. We present descriptive statistics for plasma levels of inflammatory, angiogenic cytokines and microRNAs, and we identify a range of wound colonizing microbes. We tentatively explore association with healing aiming to generate hypotheses for future research. Results: We report a potential correlation between poor healing outcomes and elevated interleukin (IL)-6 plasma levels at presentation (ρ=0.13) which requires confirmation. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the degree of biological heterogeneity amongst people with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention and proves the feasibility of embedding a biomarker discovery study in a cohort study in surgical wounds. Our results are essential for designing large biomarker discovery studies to further investigate the potential validity of circulating IL-6 or other factors as novel predictive biomarkers of healing for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention

Wound healing and hyper-hydration - a counter intuitive model

Winters seminal work in the 1960s relating to providing an optimal level of moisture to aid wound healing (granulation and re-epithelialisation) has been the single most effective advance in wound care over many decades. As such the development of advanced wound dressings that manage the fluidic wound environment have provided significant benefits in terms of healing to both patient and clinician. Although moist wound healing provides the guiding management principle confusion may arise between what is deemed to be an adequate level of tissue hydration and the risk of developing maceration. In addition, the counter-intuitive model ‘hyper-hydration’ of tissue appears to frustrate the moist wound healing approach and advocate a course of intervention whereby tissue is hydrated beyond what is a normally acceptable therapeutic level. This paper discusses tissue hydration, the cause and effect of maceration and distinguishes these from hyper-hydration of tissue. The rationale is to provide the clinician with a knowledge base that allows optimisation of treatment and outcomes and explains the reasoning behind wound healing using hyper-hydration

An intervention to reassure patients about test results in rapid access chest pain clinic: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention. METHODS: This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-138) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Non-invasive management of peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is common and symptoms can be debilitating and lethal. Risk management, exercise, radiological and surgical intervention are all valuable therapies, but morbidity and mortality rates from this disease are increasing. Circulatory enhancement can be achieved using simple medical electronic devices, with claims of minimal adverse side effects. The evidence for these is variable, prompting a review of the available literature. METHODS: Embase and Medline were interrogated for full text articles in humans and written in English. Any external medical devices used in the management of peripheral arterial disease were included if they had objective outcome data. RESULTS: Thirty-one papers met inclusion criteria, but protocols were heterogenous. The medical devices reported were intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), electronic nerve (NMES) or muscle stimulators (EMS), and galvanic electrical dressings. In patients with intermittent claudication, IPC devices increase popliteal artery velocity (49-70 %) and flow (49-84 %). Gastrocnemius EMS increased superficial femoral artery flow by 140 %. Over 4.5-6 months IPC increased intermittent claudication distance (ICD) (97-150 %) and absolute walking distance (AWD) (84-112 %), with an associated increase in quality of life. NMES of the calf increased ICD and AWD by 82 % and 61-150 % at 4 weeks, and 26 % and 34 % at 8 weeks. In patients with critical limb ischaemia IPC reduced rest pain in 40-100 % and was associated with ulcer healing rates of 26 %. IPC had an early limb salvage rate of 58-83 % at 1-3 months, and 58-94 % at 1.5-3.5 years. No studies have reported the use of EMS or NMES in the management of CLI. CONCLUSION: There is evidence to support the use of IPC in the management of claudication and CLI. There is a building body of literature to support the use of electrical stimulators in PAD, but this is low level to date. Devices may be of special benefit to those with limited exercise capacity, and in non-reconstructable critical limb ischaemia. Galvanic stimulation is not recommended

Effect of novel technology-enabled multidimensional physical activity feedback in primary care patients at risk of chronic disease – the MIPACT study: A randomised controlled trial

© 2020 The Author(s). Background: Technological progress has enabled the provision of personalised feedback across multiple dimensions of physical activity that are important for health. Whether this multidimensional approach supports physical activity behaviour change has not yet been examined. Our objective was to examine the effectiveness of a novel digital system and app that provided multidimensional physical activity feedback combined with health trainer support in primary care patients identified as at risk of chronic disease. Methods: MIPACT was a parallel-group, randomised controlled trial that recruited patients at medium (≥10 and minimum clinically important difference, MCID). However, there was profound physical activity multidimensionality, and only a small proportion (5%) of patients had consistently low physical activity across all dimensions. Conclusion: In patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and/or type II diabetes, MIPACT did not increase mean physical activity. Using a sophisticated multidimensional digital approach revealed enormous heterogeneity in baseline physical activity in primary care patients, and practitioners may need to screen for low physical activity across dimensions rather than rely on disease-risk algorithms that are heavily influenced by age. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN18008011; registration date 31 July 2013)