Efficacy of a povidone‐iodine foam dressing (Betafoam) on diabetic foot ulcer

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a new povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) foam dressing (Betafoam) vs foam dressing (Medifoam) for the management of diabetic foot ulcers. This study was conducted between March 2016 and September 2017 at 10 sites in Korea. A total of 71 patients (aged ≥19 years) with...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational wound journal Vol. 17; no. 1; pp. 91 - 99
Main Authors Gwak, Heui C., Han, Seung H., Lee, Jinwoo, Park, Sejin, Sung, Ki‐Sun, Kim, Hak‐Jun, Chun, Dongil, Lee, Kyungmin, Ahn, Jae‐Hoon, Kwak, Kyunghee, Chung, Hyung‐Jin
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.02.2020
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a new povidone‐iodine (PVP‐I) foam dressing (Betafoam) vs foam dressing (Medifoam) for the management of diabetic foot ulcers. This study was conducted between March 2016 and September 2017 at 10 sites in Korea. A total of 71 patients (aged ≥19 years) with type 1/2 diabetes and early‐phase diabetic foot ulcers (Wagener classification grade 1/2) were randomised to treatment with PVP‐I foam dressing or foam dressing for 8 weeks. Wound healing, wound infection, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. The PVP‐I foam and foam dressing groups were comparable in the proportion of patients with complete wound healing within 8 weeks (44.4% vs 42.3%, P = .9191), mean (±SD) number of days to complete healing (31.00 ± 15.07 vs 33.27 ± 12.60 days; P = .6541), and infection rates (11.1% vs 11.4%; P = 1.0000). Median satisfaction score (scored from 0 to 10) at the final visit was also comparable between groups (10 vs 9, P = .2889). There was no significant difference in AE incidence (27.8% vs 17.1%, P = .2836), and none of the reported AEs had a causal relationship with the dressings. The results of this study suggest that PVP‐I foam dressing has wound‐healing efficacy comparable with foam dressing, with no notable safety concerns. This study was funded by Mundipharma Korea Ltd and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02732886).
Bibliography:Funding information
Mundipharma Korea Ltd, Grant/Award Number
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Heui C. Gwak and Seung H. Han are co‐first authors.
Funding information Mundipharma Korea Ltd, Grant/Award Number
ISSN:1742-4801
1742-481X
DOI:10.1111/iwj.13236