Browsing by Author "Schultz, Gregory"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time-dependent therapeutic window
(2010-08) Wolcott, Randall D.; Rumbaugh, Kendra P.; James, Garth A.; Schultz, Gregory; Phillips, P.; Yang, Q.; Watters, C.; Stewart, Philip S.; Dowd, Scot E.
Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that newly formed wound biofilms (or bioburdens) are more susceptible to antimicrobial treatment.Method: Four separate and distinct models were performed by four separate biofilm research laboratories to evaluate the resistance of biofilms to antimicrobial treatments over time. These included a drip-flow biofilm model along with a hydrodebridement study, a porcine skin punch biopsy ex vivo model, a mouse chronic wound model and clinical longitudinal debridement study.Results: All four models showed that, within the first 24 hours, the biofilm community was more susceptible to the selected antibiotics, and after maturing for up to 48 hours became increasingly tolerant. In each model, there was at least a 24-hour period in which the biofilms were more resistant to antibiotics. Each of the models utilised showed a significant decrease in the resistance of the biofilm/ burden to gentamicin for up to 24 hours with a confidence interval of at least 95%. The resistance increased in each of the models by 48 hours and reached original resistance levels by 72 hours.Conclusion: These data suggest the principles of biofilm-based wound care, along with the use of serial debridement to continually remove mature biofilm, followed by biofilm wound management strategies, including topical antibiotics while the bioburden is still immature and more susceptible, are valid.Conflict of interest: SED is director of Research and Testing Laboratory, a commercial laboratory that develops molecular methods for diagnosis of wounds and infections and CEO of Pathogenius Laboratories, which is a molecular pathogen diagnostic company with a focus on chronic wounds. RDW is medical director of Southwest Regional Wound Care Center and inventor of biofilm-based wound care principles.
Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds
(2017-09) Schultz, Gregory; Bjarnsholt, Thomas; James, Garth A.; Leaper, David; McBain, Andrew J.; Malone, Matthew; Stoodley, Paul; Swanson, Terry; Tachi, Masahiro; Wolcott, Randall D.
Background: Despite a growing consensus that biofilms contribute to a delay in the healing of chronic wounds, conflicting evidence pertaining to their identification and management can lead to uncertainty regarding treatment. This, in part, has been driven by reliance on in vitro data or animal models, which may not directly correlate to clinical evidence on the importance of biofilms. Limited data presented in human studies have further contributed to the uncertainty. Guidelines for care of chronic wounds with a focus on biofilms are needed to help aid the identification and management of biofilms, providing a clinical focus to support clinicians in improving patient care through evidence-based medicine. Methods: A Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel, comprising 10 clinicians and researchers with expertise in laboratory and clinical aspects of biofilms, was identified and convened. A modified Delphi process, based on published scientific data and expert opinion, was used to develop consensus statements that could help identify and treat biofilms as part of the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Using an electronic survey, panel members rated their agreement with statements about biofilm identification and treatment, and the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Final consensus statements were agreed on in a face-to-face meeting. Results: Participants reached consensus on 61 statements in the following topic areas: understanding biofilms and the problems they cause clinicians; current diagnostic options; clinical indicators of biofilms; future options for diagnostic tests; treatment strategies; mechanical debridement; topical antiseptics; screening antibiofilm agents; and levels of evidence when choosing antibiofilm treatments. Conclusion: This consensus document attempts to clarify misunderstandings about the role of biofilms in clinical practice, and provides a basis for clinicians to recognize biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds and manage patients optimally. A new paradigm for wound care, based on a stepped-down treatment approach, was derived from the consensus statements.
The prevalence of biofilms in chronic wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data
(2017-01) Malone, Matthew; Bjarnsholt, Thomas; McBain, Andrew J.; James, Garth A.; Stoodley, Paul; Leaper, David; Tachi, Masahiro; Schultz, Gregory; Swanson, Terry; Wolcott, Randall D.
The presence of biofilms in chronic non-healing wounds, has been identified through in vitro model and in vivo animal data. However, human chronic wound studies are under-represented and generally report low sample sizes. For this reason we sought to ascertain the prevalence of biofilms in human chronic wounds by undertaking a systematic review and meta-analysis. Our initial search identified 554 studies from the literature databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline). After removal of duplicates, and those not meeting the requirements of inclusion, nine studies involving 185 chronic wounds met the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of biofilms in chronic wounds was 78.2 % (confidence interval [CI 61.6-89, p<0.002]). The results of our meta-analysis support our clinical assumptions that biofilms are ubiquitous in human chronic non-healing wounds.