Honey as a topical treatment for wounds.

BACKGROUND: Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds.

BACKGROUND: Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine whether honey increases the rate of healing in acute wounds (e.g. burns, lacerations) and chronic wounds (e.g. skin ulcers, infected surgical wounds). SEARCH METHODS: For this first update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 June 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to May Week 5 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 12 June 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to 2012 Week 23); and EBSCO CINAHL (2008 to 8 June 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 trials (with a total of 2987 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, including six new trials that were added to this update. In acute wounds, three trials evaluated the effect of honey in acute lacerations, abrasions or minor surgical wounds and 12 trials evaluated the effect of honey in burns. In chronic wounds, two trials evaluated the effect of honey in venous leg ulcers, and single trials investigated its effect in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Lieshmaniasis, diabetic foot ulcers and Fournier's gangrene. Three trials recruited people into mixed groups of chronic or acute wounds. Most trials were at high or unclear risk of bias. In acute wounds, specifically partial-thickness burns, honey might reduce time to healing compared with some conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -4.28 to -5.09 days), but, when compared with early excision and grafting, honey delays healing in partial- and full-thickness burns (WMD 13.6 days, 95% CI 10.02 to 17.18 days). In chronic wounds, honey does not significantly increase healing in venous leg ulcers when used as an adjuvant to compression (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38), and may delay healing in cutaneous Leishmaniasis when used as an adjuvant to meglumine antimoniate compared to meglumine antimoniate alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.01). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey dressings do not increase rates of healing significantly in venous leg ulcers when used as an adjuvant to compression. Honey may delay healing in partial- and full-thickness burns in comparison to early excision and grafting, and in cutaneous Leishmaniasis when used as an adjuvant with meglumine antimoniate. Honey might be superior to some conventional dressing materials, but there is considerable uncertainty about the replicability and applicability of this evidence. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in other types of wounds, and purchasers should refrain from providing honey dressings for routine use until sufficient evidence of effect is available.

Pentoxifylline for treating venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Healing of venous leg ulcers is improved by the use of compression bandaging but some venous ulcers remain unhealed, and some people are unsuitable for compression therapy. Pentoxifylline, a drug which helps blood flow, has been used to treat venous leg ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pentoxifylline (oxpentifylline or Trental 400) for treating venous leg ulcers, compared with a placebo or other therapies, in the presence or absence of compression therapy. SEARCH METHODS: For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 20 July 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 2 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 19, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 28); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to July 13 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing pentoxifylline with placebo or other therapy in the presence or absence of compression, in people with venous leg ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted and summarised details from eligible trials using a coding sheet. One other review author independently verified data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified for this update. We included twelve trials involving 864 participants. The quality of trials was variable. Eleven trials compared pentoxifylline with placebo or no treatment. Pentoxifylline is more effective than placebo in terms of complete ulcer healing or significant improvement (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.24). Pentoxifylline plus compression is more effective than placebo plus compression (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.13). Pentoxifylline in the absence of compression appears to be more effective than placebo or no treatment (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.39).More adverse effects were reported in people receiving pentoxifylline (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.22). Nearly three-quarters (72%) of the reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pentoxifylline is an effective adjunct to compression bandaging for treating venous ulcers and may be effective in the absence of compression. The majority of adverse effects were gastrointestinal disturbances.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds

Article from the Cochrane Library about the topical use of honey to treat wounds. Last update on May, 26th, 2008.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds.

BACKGROUND: Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested honey may accelerate wound healing. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine whether honey increases the rate of healing in acute wounds (burns, lacerations and other traumatic wounds) and chronic wounds (venous ulcers, arterial ulcers, diabetic ulcers, pressure ulcers, infected surgical wounds). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (May 2008), CENTRAL (May 2008) and several other electronic databases (May 2008). Bibliographies were searched and manufacturers of dressing products were contacted for unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised using a data extraction sheet by one author and independently verified by a second author. MAIN RESULTS: 19 trials (n=2554) were identified that met the inclusion criteria. In acute wounds, three trials evaluated the effect of honey in acute lacerations, abrasions or minor surgical wounds and nine trials evaluated the effect the honey in burns. In chronic wounds two trials evaluated the effect of honey in venous leg ulcers and one trial in pressure ulcers, infected post-operative wounds, and Fournier's gangrene respectively. Two trials recruited people with mixed groups of chronic or acute wounds. The poor quality of most of the trial reports means the results should be interpreted with caution, except in venous leg ulcers. In acute wounds, honey may reduce time to healing compared with some conventional dressings in partial thickness burns (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -4.28 to -5.09 days). All the included burns trials have originated from a single centre, which may have impact on replicability. In chronic wounds, honey in addition to compression bandaging does not significantly increase healing in venous leg ulcers (RR 1.15, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.38). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of honey compared with other treatments for burns or in other acute or chronic wound types. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may improve healing times in mild to moderate superficial and partial thickness burns compared with some conventional dressings. Honey dressings as an adjuvant to compression do not significantly increase leg ulcer healing at 12 weeks. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in other areas.

Chitosan for overweight or obesity.

BACKGROUND: Chitosan, a deacetylated chitin, is a dietary supplement reported to decrease body weight. It is widely available over the counter worldwide and although evaluated in a number of trials its efficacy remains in dispute. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of chitosan as a treatment for overweight and obesity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library), specialised web sites (Controlled Trials, IBIDS, SIGLE, Reuter's Health Service, Natural Alternatives International, Pharmanutrients), bibliographies of relevant journal articles, and contacted relevant authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included in the review if they were randomised controlled trials of chitosan for a minimum of four weeks duration in adults who were overweight or obese. Authors of included studies were contacted for additional information where appropriate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Details from eligible trials were extracted independently by two reviewers using a standardised data extraction form. Differences in data extraction were resolved by consensus. Continuous data were expressed as weighted mean differences and standard deviations. The pooled effect size was computed by using the inverse variance weighted method. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials including a total of 1219 participants met the inclusion criteria. No trial to date has measured the effect of chitosan on mortality or morbidity. Analyses indicated that chitosan preparations result in a significantly greater weight loss (weighted mean difference -1.7 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1 to -1.3 kg, P < 0.00001), decrease in total cholesterol (-0.2 mmol/L [95% CI -0.3 to -0.1], P < 0.00001), and a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with placebo. There were no clear differences between intervention and control groups in terms of frequency of adverse events or in faecal fat excretion. However, the quality of many studies was sub-optimal and analyses restricted to studies that met allocation concealment criteria, were larger, or of longer duration showed that such trials produced substantially smaller decreases in weight and total cholesterol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that chitosan is more effective than placebo in the short-term treatment of overweight and obesity. However, many trials to date have been of poor quality and results have been variable. Results obtained from high quality trials indicate that the effect of chitosan on body weight is minimal and unlikely to be of clinical significance.