Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 357–365 | Cite as

Cost, Efficacy, Efficiency and Tolerability of Collagenase Ointment versus Hydrocolloid Occlusive Dressing in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers

A Comparative, Randomised, Multicentre Study
  • Angel Burgos
  • J. Giménez
  • E. Moreno
  • E. Lamberto
  • M. Utrera
  • E. M. Urraca
  • F. J. Vélez
  • E. López
  • M. A. Martínez
  • M.J. Gómez
  • L. García
Clinical Pharmacoeconomics

Abstract

Objective: Pressure ulcers are a common and costly healthcare problem. It is imperative to devise treatment methods that are simultaneously efficacious and cost effective. The efficacy and tolerability of collagenase ointment and hydrocolloid occlusive dressing have been proven in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but no comparative cost-efficacy studies have been reported. The present study was carried out to compare the cost, efficacy, efficiency and tolerability of these two methods.

Design and Setting: This was a multicentre, randomised, nonblind, parallel group study conducted at seven hospitals in Spain.

Patients: 37 evaluable patients of either gender aged 55 years or over having had stage III pressure ulcers for <1 year.

Methods: Reduction of ulcer area assessed at 1-week intervals was the primary outcome measure. Pain, granulation tissue, exudate and odour were also evaluated, as were nutrition state and occurrence of adverse reactions.

Results: No statistically significant differences in cost, efficacy or efficiency were detected between collagenase ointment and hydrocolloid dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers, although a trend for better efficacy and efficiency of collagenase treatment was observed. The tolerability of both therapeutic regimens was good.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that collagenase ointment and hydrocolloid dressing produced similar healing effects in patients with pressure ulcers.

Keywords

Collagenase Pressure Ulcer Ulcer Area Exudate Sample Pressure Ulcer Development 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Laboratorios Knoll, SA, Madrid.

References

  1. 1.
    Hatz RA, Niedner R, Vansheidt W, et al. Wound healing and wound management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pressure ulcers. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service/US Department of Health and Human Services, AHCPR Publication no. 95-0652, 1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jung W, Winter H. Considerations for the use of clostridial collagenase in clinical practice. Clin Drug Invest 1998; 15: 245–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sinclair RD, Ryan TJ. Types of chronic wounds: indications for enzymatic debridement. In: Westerhof W, Vanscheldt W, editors. Proteolytic enzymes and wound healing. Berlin: Springer, 1994: 7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ranzati C, Zahn W, Thorn H. Bacterial collagenase and collagen breakdown products exert chemotactic effects in vitro: implication for wound débridement and wound healing [abstract no. 37]. 4th Annual Meeting of the European Tissue Repair Society, 1994 Aug 25–28: Oxford, England, 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herman IM. Stimulation of human keratinocyte migration and proliferation in vitro: insights into the cellular responses to injury and wound healing. Wounds 1996; 8: 33Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortivo R, Radice M, Brun P, et al. Biological activity of human collagen breakdown products of fibroblasts. Wounds 1995; 7: 38AGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Porres-Reyes BH, Blair HC, Jeffrey JJ, et al. Collagenase production at the border of granulation tissue in a healing wound: macrophage and mesenchymal collagenase production in vivo. Connect Tissue Res 1991; 27: 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen IK, Diegelmann RF, Lindblad WJ, editors. Wound healing: biochemical and clinical aspects. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1992Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peacocke M, Gilchrest B. Cutaneous aging: cellular and molecular studies. In: Abatangelo G, Davidson JM, editors. Cutaneous development, aging and repair. Fidia Research Series. Padova: Liviana Press, 1989; 118: 263Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palmieri B, Magri M. A new formulation of collagenase ointment (Iruxol® Mono) in the treatment of ulcers of the lower extremities. A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Clin Drug Invest 1998; 15: 381–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alfisi M, Ferrante A, Veneziani A, et al. Kollagenasehaltiges enzympräparat für die wundreinigune bei ulzera unterschiedlicher genese. Der Kassenarzt 1986; 42: 44–50Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia J. Desbridamiento y curación de úlceras por presión [abstract no. 48]. I Congreso Internacional de Enfermería Geriátrica. 1997 May 28–31: Barcelona, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Helaly P, Vogt E, Schneider G. Wundheilungsstörungen und ihre enzmatische therapie eine multizentrische doppelblinstudie. Schwz Rundsch Med Praxis 1988; 77: 1428–34Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Leen MWF. Collagenase treatment of chronic ulcers. 46th Congresso Nazionale delia Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica & the European Tissue Repair Society Focus Meeting. 1997 Sep 30–Oct 3: Venezia, 1997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winter GD. Formation of the scab and the rate of epithelisation of superficial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. J Wound Care 1995; 4: 366–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stotts NA. Impaired wound healing. In: Carried Kholman V, Lindsay AM, editors. Pathophysiological phenomena in nursing: human response to illness. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1993: 443–69Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rijswijk LV, Brown D, Friedman S, et al. Multicenter clinical evaluation of a hydrocolloid dressing for leg ulcers. Cutis 1985; 35: 173–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baxter R. Varihesive and the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. Aust Fam Physician 1980; 9: 599–601PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colwell JC, Foreman MD, Trotter JP A comparison of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two methods of managing pressure ulcers. Decubitus 1993; 6: 28–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ohlsson P, Larsson K, Lindholm C, et al. A cost-effectiveness study of leg ulcer treatment in primary care. Comparison of saline-gauze and hydrocolloid treatment in a prospective, randomized study. Scand J Prim Health Care 1994; 12: 295–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arnold TE, Stanley JC, Fellows EP, et al. Prospective, multicenter study of managing lower extremity venous ulcers. Ann Vasc Surg 1994; 8: 356–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindholm C. Leg ulcer treatment in hospital and primary care in Sweden: cost-effective care and quality of life. Adv Wound Care 1995; 8: 48–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim YC, Shin JC, Park CI, et al. Efficacy of hydrocolloid occlusive dressing technique in decubitus ulcer treatment: a comparative study. Yonsei Med J 1996; 37: 181–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thomas S, Banks V, Bale S, et al. Acomparison of two dressings in the management of chronic wounds. J Wound Care 1997; 6: 383–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergstrom N, Braden B. A prospective study of pressure sore risk among institutionalized elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40: 747–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanan K, Scheele L. Albumin vs weight as a predictor of nutritional status and pressure ulcer development. Ostomy Wound Manage 1991; 33: 22–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holmes R, Macchiano K, Jhangani SS, et al. Nutrition know-how: combating pressure sores nutritionally. Am J Nurs 1987; 87: 1301–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pinchcofsky-Devin GB, Kaminsky Jr MV. Correlation of pressure sores and nutritional status. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 34: 435–40PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angel Burgos
    • 1
  • J. Giménez
    • 1
  • E. Moreno
    • 1
  • E. Lamberto
    • 2
  • M. Utrera
    • 3
  • E. M. Urraca
    • 4
  • F. J. Vélez
    • 5
  • E. López
    • 6
  • M. A. Martínez
    • 6
  • M.J. Gómez
    • 7
  • L. García
    • 8
  1. 1.Medical DepartmentLaboratorios Knoll, SAMadridSpain
  2. 2.Unit of InfirmaryHospital de San Juan de DiosPamplonaSpain
  3. 3.Unit of InfirmaryResidencia Asistida de ManoterasMadridSpain
  4. 4.Unit of InfirmaryResidencia Privada Santa EugeniaMadridSpain
  5. 5.Unit of InfirmaryHospital de San Juan de DiosZaragozaSpain
  6. 6.Unit of InfirmaryResidencia de Alcobendas, AlcobendasMadridSpain
  7. 7.Unit of InfirmaryHospital del GeneralísimoMadridSpain
  8. 8.Department of Plastic SurgeryHospital La FeValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations