Press release – Wound infection: Don’t kill the bacteria!

A new study published today in the US medical journal WOUNDS has proven that wound infection must be treated by helping the body establish the right bacteria instead of current medical practice, which is to kill them. This is a fundamental shift in how we view infection.

It has for decades been standard practise to use antibiotics and antiseptics to kill bacteria in a wound with the aim to remove an infection. However, in 2016, the FDA concluded that wound dressings containing antibiotics and antiseptics do not remove wound infections and do not improve healing.

The outer surfaces of our body are in constant contact with the environment and it is not possible for the body to keep these sterile. Instead the body actively populates all external surfaces with particular microbes (the microbiome) to ensure there is no “vacant space”. This makes it very difficult for disease-causing microbes to gain a foothold or for one species to suddenly take over control. However, antibiotics and antiseptics indiscriminately kill bacteria and they therefore destroy the balance the body is trying to create. The result is that these treatments do not assist healing, but may even delay healing.

Using a new micropore particle technology (MPPT), it has been possible to reliably remove wound infections and support healing for a wide range of acute and chronic wounds and ulcers. This approach does not kill the bacteria but instead creates conditions that enable the body’s immune system to establish the correct balance of microbes in the wound, and achieving this balance means removing the infection. These findings therefore provide evidence that infections in the wound have to be treated fundamentally differently to infections in internal sterile body regions.

Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Dame Sally Davies said:
“Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is an escalating global threat that puts millions of lives across the world in danger. We cannot rely on the development of new antibiotics alone to mitigate this threat. We need better preventative measures as well as alternative treatments, including innovative ways to use the body’s own immune system and healthy bacteria. I am proud to say the UK are leaders in research into this area.”

Background Information:
1. In the UK there are annually 2.2 million wounds requiring extended treatment and the direct costs of care to the NHS is £5.3 billion annually (Guest et al. 2015). In community care, Guest et al. (2017) reported that 48% of the wounds are chronic, demonstrating the limitations of current approaches.
2. The main reason wounds do not heal is due to infection (Leaper et al. 2015).
3. Micropore particle technology (MPPT) consists of small particles filled with pores. They use a combination of capillary flow and evaporation to remove exudate on the wound. This micro-pumping process in parallel removes the toxins and enzymes that bacteria and fungi secrete to inhibit the immune cells and creates holes in the biofilm that bacteria and fungi secrete as a shield against the immune cells. The result is that MPPT disrupts the weaponry of bacteria and fungi, whereby the immune cells regain their ability to selective remove bacteria and fungi to create the balance it wants in the microbiome.

Reference:
Article Title: Time to Abandon Antimicrobial Approaches in Wound Healing: A Paradigm Shift
Journal: WOUNDS – A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice, https://www.woundsresearch.com/article/sams-dodd
Publication date: 01 November 2018

Press Release: The NHS can save £1.1 billion per year on wound healing – large study documents benefits of novel technology

Press Release:

The NHS can save £1.1 billion per year on wound healing

   –   large study documents benefits of novel technology

This month, a large clinical study was published in the recognised American scientific journal WOUNDS. The study shows that a novel Micropore Particle Technology (MPPT), when used in the healing of complicated wounds, will reduce by 60% the time to rid the wound of the complicating factors and steer it onto the path of optimal healing. It also shows that patients hospitalised due to wounds can be discharged 30% sooner.

The technology removes wound infections without the use of antibiotics. Consequently, it is able to remove antibiotic resistant infections from wounds.

 

Annually, the NHS spends £5.3 billion on direct wound care. The first product resulting from this new technology, Acapsil, can save 21% of those costs, potentially allowing the NHS to free up £1.1 bn annually for other purposes. These calculations do not take into account the additional benefits of the reduced risks of complications or the wound becoming chronic. Nor do they consider the advantages to the patients who can resume normal life, or the reduced use of antibiotics; we can preserve the remaining effective antibiotics as last resort for other diseases and avoid creating new resistance.

The wounds and ulcers in the study were all severe and needed hospitalisation and the intervention of a consultant.

 

Wounds constitute a key point of entry for infections to enter the rest of the body. The technology will, therefore, have positive implications beyond wound healing, as it will prevent sepsis or infections spreading to internal organs.

 

“Acapsil is simple but forceful. Indirectly, it supports the patient’s own immune system and enables it to progress the wound towards healing,” explain the joint managing directors of Willingsford Ltd., Frank and Jeanette Sams-Dodd who have dedicated the past nine years to the development of Acapsil. “The immune system of the individual patient knows best what needs to be done in order to heal a wound. If the wound will not heal, it is because the immune system is being inhibited. By cancelling this inhibition, the immune system can take control and push the wound towards closure;”

They go on: “We will over the coming years experience a change in patient’s expectations of how their complicated wounds will heal and close, instead of just being managed – as is often the case at the moment. This progress will have enormous socio-economic impact. Family breadwinners need not lose their jobs. The middle-aged and elderly will be able to live unaided or independently for much longer, as wounds and ulcers often have a disabling impact on lives.”

 

Acapsil was approved across the entire EU in 2016. It has since been evaluated by the NHS at University Hospital Bristol. Their evaluation confirmed the findings of the larger comparative clinical study published today.

 

Read the article in WOUNDS

 

Southampton, UK, 22 May 2017 – Press Release

 

This press release contains forward-looking statements about Willingsford Ltd. and the product, Acapsil.  Actual results could differ materially from those discussed or implied in this press release due to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the risk that Acapsil and the revenues generated from Acapsil may be affected by competition; unexpected new data; safety and technical issues; clinical trials not being completed in a timely manner, not confirming previous results, or not achieving the intended clinical endpoints; pre-clinical trials not predicting future results; label expansion requests or filings not being submitted in a timely manner; regulatory approval being delayed or not received; or manufacturing and supply issues.  The potential for Acapsil may also be affected by government and commercial reimbursement and pricing decisions, the pace of market acceptance, or scientific, regulatory and other issues and risks inherent in the development and commercialisation of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

Second publication co-sponsored by Willingsford on the burden of wound care in the UK.

The second article publishing the findings of the study to investigate the burden of wound care in the UK has been published.

The abstract is available here:

Guest, J. F., Ayoub, N., McIlwraith, T., Uchegbu, I., Gerrish, A., Weidlich, D., Vowden, K. and Vowden, P. (2016), Health economic burden that different wound types impose on the UK’s National Health Service. Int Wound J. doi:10.1111/iwj.12603.

1 2