Skin Microbiota – A Novel Target for Promoting Burn Wound Healing

Review article discussing
the wound microbiome and Amicapsil

Treatment of venous leg ulcers with Amicapsil

“Amicapsil healed my venous leg ulcers and changed my life.”

“From 4 weeks of absolute hell – to being pain-free, getting a full night’s sleep and back to normal at work.”

“From 4 weeks of absolute hell, in pain 24 hours a day, struggling at work – to being pain-free, getting a full night’s sleep and back to normal at work.”

NH ( patient)

SertaSil for veterinary wound treatment

SertaSil for veterinary wound care

Effective in treating severe infections, including infections not responding to antibiotics and antiseptics.

Treatment of wounds and pressure ulcers in persons with spinal cord injury

Amicapsil-SCI

Effective treatment of wounds and pressure ulcers in SCI-persons and in controlling soft tissue infection caused by osteomyelitis.

MPPT - micropore particle technology

MPPT – micropore particle technology is an emerging novel type of treatment for wounds and dermatological skin lesions. It acts via the wound microbiome-immune axis to support the immune system, thereby enabling the body’s immune system to fight wound infection and regenerate new tissue to close the wound.

MPPT uses the micro-evaporation of moisture from the skin and wound surface to transport away microbial toxins and enzymes and to disrupt the structure of biofilm. Disrupting these microbial defence systems, returns control to the immune system such that it can remove the wound infection and regenerate lost tissue. MPPT does not have any antimicrobial effects and nothing is released into the wound.

Studies in humans and animals have shown that MPPT removes wound infections 60% quicker than antibiotics and antiseptics and that these effects lead to stable wound closure. MPPT is effective in immunocompetent and in immunocompromised individuals, including in conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis.

MPPT has been found safe to use and has not been associated with allergy or wound irritation.

MPPT disrupts mature biofilm

MPPT is a Class II medical device and is CE-marked. It is approved as a treatment for wounds, i.e. with a therapeutic claim similar to pharmaceuticals. It is the only wound product to achieve this.

MPPT is available over-the-counter, i.e. a prescription is not needed, and is available for private use. The bottles are not single use. MPPT is temperature sensitive and needs to be stored on refrigeration.

MPPT is available as Amicapsil and Aprobaxil for human use. SertaSil and Adinasil are for veterinary use.

MPPT only involves natural ingredients that are readily biologically recyclable and only water and cotton are used in the process. All packaging is recyclable.

No contribution to climate change or environmental damage.

Independent review of MPPT (Amicapsil)

Skin Microbiota: A Novel Target for Promoting Burn Wound Healing

REVIEW ARTICLE

Yang et al. (2025) Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2025; 33:e70118. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.70118

About the Journal:
Wound Repair and Regeneration publishes extensive international coverage of cellular and molecular biology, connective tissue, and biological mediator studies in the field of tissue repair and regeneration. It is the official journal of The Wound Healing Society (USA), The European Tissue Repair Society, The Japanese Society for Wound Healing, and Wounds Australia.

Quotes from publication (section 7.1)

“Amicapsil removes infections 60% faster than conventional treatments such as antibiotics and antiseptics in a spectrum of wounds, including acute wounds, venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, and burns [145]. Studies have confirmed the efficacy of this method across various wound types, resulting in complete and stable wound closure.”

“These findings suggest that wound management strategies targeting the microbiome–immune axis may offer superior efficacy compared to conventional antimicrobial approaches. This approach, which interacts with the microbiome without eradicating microorganisms or cells, offers a promising strategy to effectively address wound infections while supporting regenerative processes.”

Antimicrobials ineffective

FDA (2016): Classification of Wound Dressings Combined with Drugs

“The available evidence does not appear to demonstrate improved clinical outcomes from the use of antimicrobial dressings over non-antimicrobial dressings for the prevention or treatment of local wound infections or to improve wound healing.”

FDA (2022): Advancing product development for non-healing chronic wounds.

“Despite the public health burden, innovative products aimed at the treatment of non-healing chronic wounds are lacking.”

“innovative product development is essential to addressing the unmet medical need of non-healing chronic wounds”.

Benefits of MPPT

60% quicker removal of wound infection and 50% quicker onset of tissue regeneration than antibiotics and antiseptics.
Effective across wound types.
Effective against antimicrobial resistant wound infections.
Effective in persons with compromised immune function.
Reduction in infection reduces wound pain.
Studies in dehished surgical wounds and pressure ulcers shown 100% healing rates.
Able to control soft tissue infection caused by underlying osteomyelitis.
Allows surgery in non-infected tissue.
Bed rest not required.
No wound irritation or allergy observed.
Components non-toxic if ingested.
Components biologically readily recyclable.

Value of MPPT

Reduced costs-of-care in community:

Acute pressure ulcers: 80% savings
Suitable for self-care and telemedicine
Improved safety and quality of care
Reduced recurrence of wounds

Improved hospital performance:

Reduced patient mortality
Reduced length of stay
Improved safety and quality of care
Reduced admission rates

Implementation of MPPT:

Easy to use.
Rapid healing supports compliance.
No allergy or irritation to reduce compliance.

Overview of MPPT publications

Source	Study	Design	Wound Type	N of wounds	Comparator	Primary outcome	Secondary outcome	Both Achieved	Safety issues	Comments
Bilyayeva et al. (2014)	Preclinical	RCT	Preclinical model	45	Gentamicin, untreated	Infection removal	Closure	Yes	No	MPPT infection free 60% quicker and reached closure 26% quicker vs. gentamicin.
Bilyayeva et al. (2017)	Hospital inpatients	RCT	Acute, SSI, DFU, VLU, burns	266	Gentamicin, untreated	Infection removal	Hospital discharge	Yes	No	MPPT infection-free 60%, onset of granulation 50%; and discharge 31% quicker vs. gentamicin. Acute wounds reached substantially quicker full closure compared to gentamicin and iodine.
Ryan (2017)	Hospital inpatients*	RWE	SSI	10	NPWT	Infection removal	Hospital discharge	Yes	No	Tissue granulation 81% quicker than historic control. All wounds proceeded towards closure.
Sams-Dodd et al. (2018)	Community (4 patients, 1 veterinary)	Case	PI, DFU, VLU, trauma	5	Standard care	Infection removal	Size reduction or closure	Yes	No	Wound infection removed and healing seen in all cases. Two wounds could be followed to closure, two patients died of non-wound related conditions, and one could not be followed.
O'Sullivan et al. (2020)	Rehab-ward patient*	Case	DF	1	Aquacel & NPWT	Infection removal	Rehab	Yes	No	Removal of soft tissue infection, large reduction in wound size. Comparators were ineffective.
Sams-Dodd et al. (2020)	Community	Case	DF	1	Manuka honey, PHMB	Infection removal	Surgery	Yes	No	Removal of soft tissue infection, allowing surgery. Large reduction in wound size. Comparators were ineffective.
Sams-Dodd et al. (2024)	Community using telemedicine	RWE	PI/DF	44	Standard care	Wound closure and DF control	Costs and resource savings	Yes	No	MPPT achieved 100% closure of acute and chronic wounds, including wounds that had failed to close with standard care. Control of soft tissue infection from DF. Substantial cost and resource savings.
Smith and Ridler (2024)	Community*	PRO	PI/DF	49	Standard care	Wound closure and DF control	User saisfaction	Yes	No	MPPT achieved 100% closure in acute and chronic wounds. All chronic wounds had prior been unsuccessfully treated with standard care. Control of soft tissue infection from DF. High patient satisfaction with the use of MPPT.
Sams-Dodd et al. (2025)	Climate change is assumed to contribute to AMR, but an analysis finds that the reverse is the case, i.e. that AMR strongly contributes to climate change. A single course of antibiotics is estimated to cause the release of 9.84 tonnes of CO2 – the equivalent of a standard car driving around the Earth 1.47 times. Unlike standard care approaches to infected wound, which are known to be ineffective, MPPT involves no antimicrobials and is non-toxic. Therefore, it does not contribute to climate change.
Sams-Dodd et al. (2025), submitted	Veterinary use	RWE	Necrotizing fasciitis, amputation, trauma, moist dermatitis	21	Standard care	Wound closure	High quality of closure and scarring	Yes	No	MPPT achieved 100% closure of acute and chronic wounds. Stable closure was achieved in cases with acute osteomyelitis. All chronic wounds had been unsuccessfully treated with standard care as well as in several cases amputated, including repeat amputation.

*: independent study. Study designs: PRO: patient-reported outcome study; RCT: Randomised Controlled Trial; RWE: Real-world-evidence study. Wound types: DF: draining fistula; DFU: diabetic foot ulcer; PI: Pressure injury; SSI: surgical site infection; VLU: venous leg ulcer.