‡ In these countries please contact our distributor

Infection Management

A route to more effective infection management1

A clear, concise pathway to help improve patient outcomes with accurate decision-making, a fast response, and effective treatment choices1

Chronic wound infection is a complex problem with inconsistent outcomes…but why?

  • Uncertainty and inconsistency in assessment and diagnosis can often result in misuse of topical antimicrobial dressings2-4
  • Pressure on wound care budgets often results in restricted access to the products required to manage infection effectively6
  • Under-reporting, with twice as many wounds with signs of infection than those reported7

Our new infection management pathway aims to help reduce the risk of spreading and systemic infection, to help improve outcomes and reduce costs.1

Download the infection management pathway

The real cost of chronic wound infection

Understanding the scale of the problem highlights the importance of practice change to find a route to more effective infection management.

For patients
Daily lives and activities of patients and their families are impacted,5 with prolonged suffering and recurrent infections leading to pain, odour, anxiety, and social isolation.5

For clinicians
Overstretching already-limited resources, with increasing caseloads and extended treatment times.5,8 Hospital admissions are shown to be the result of 43% of infected wounds in the community, according to a recent survey.7

For budgets
The cost of non-healing wounds in the UK’s NHS is estimated to be a startling £3.2 billion.9 The use of less effective products to manage local infection and biofilm may result in prolonged treatment duration and up to two times greater costs.10

What’s the real cost of infection to your organisation and patients?

Use the right antimicrobial solution at the right time

Expert consensus recommendations tell us that chronic wounds with local or spreading infection need to be managed differently to wounds with biofilm associated infection.4

For local and spreading infection

Act fast on local infection with ACTICOAT Dressings, to help reduce the risk of progression to systemic infection.10,11

Fast acting,12 with broad-spectrum efficacy,12 with sustained antimicrobial activity for up to 7 days.12         


  • Shown to resolve all signs and symptoms of infection in 60% of patients within 2 weeks10
  • In a study, chronic wounds treated with ACTICOAT were nearly 3 times more likely to heal at any time, compared to other silver dressings**10

Read: How ACTICOAT Dressings compared to other silver dressings for resolving local infection and reducing wound healing time10

For signs and symptoms of biofilm

Disrupt biofilm with IODOSORB Cadexomer Iodine Dressings to remove barriers to effective healing.13-20

Removes slough, debris, and bacteria.15-20 Capable of absorbing 7 times its own weight.*21

  • IODOSORB |Dressings have been shown to be effective against biofilm, and demonstrated superior results compared to other topical antimicrobials including PHMB, silver, and povidone iodine***14,23

Read: A systematic literature review confirmed cadexomer iodine (IODOSORB) was the only agent to demonstrate efficacy against chronic wound biofilm in both preclinical and clinical studies.14

View how ACTICOAT and IODOSORB Dressings feature in our infection management pathway

Further pathway and product guidance

For further information and guidance on our infection management pathway, or to discuss treatment selection, please contact us.

Helping you get CLOSER TO ZERO complications from wound infection.
*Each gram of IODOSORB Powder can absorb up to approximately 6ml of fluid.
***p<0.05; as demonstrated in vitro.


1. Dowsett, C., Bellingeri, A., Carville, K., Garten, A. & Woo, K. A route to more effective infection and biofilm management. Wounds Int. ahead of p, (2020).
2. Swanson, T., Wolcott, R. D., Wallis, H. & Woodmansey, E. J. Understanding biofilm in practice: a global survey of health professionals. J. Wound Care 26, 426–440 (2017).
3. Megginson, S. Analysis of Survey Data conducted by Wounds International to Health Care Professionals on Infection and Biofilm. Smith+Nephew Statistical Results Sheet #ST1092. (2020).
4. Schultz, G. et al. Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 25, 744–757 (2017).
5. Lindholm, C. & Searle, R. Wound management for the 21st century: combining effectiveness and efficiency. Int. Wound J. 13, 5–15 (2016).
6. Guest, J. F. et al. Health economic burden that different wound types impose on the UK’s National Health Service. Int. Wound J. 14, 322–330 (2017).
7. Styche, T. The characteristics and impact of infected wounds. EWMA, Gothenburg (2019).
8. Nussbaum, S. R. et al. An Economic Evaluation of the Impact, Cost, and Medicare Policy Implications of Chronic Nonhealing Wounds. Value Heal. 21, 27–32 (2018).
9. Guest, J. F. et al. Health economic burden that wounds impose on the National Health Service in the UK. BMJ Open 5, e009283 (2015).
10. Gago, M. et al. A Comparison of Three Silver-containing Dressings in the Treatment of Infected, Chronic Wounds. Wounds a Compend. Clin. Res. Pract. 20, 273–8 (2008).
11. Newton, H. Reducing MRSA bacteraemias associated with wounds. Wounds UK 6, 56–65 (2010).
12. Woodmansey, E. J. & Roberts, C. D. Appropriate use of dressings containing nanocrystalline silver to support antimicrobial stewardship in wounds. Int. Wound J. 15, 1025–1032 (2018).
13. Schwarzer, S. et al. The efficacy of topical agents used in wounds for managing chronic biofilm infections: A systematic review. J. Infect. (2019). doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2019.12.017.
14. Fitzgerald DJ, Renick PJ, Forrest EC, et al. Cadexomer iodine provides superior efficacy against bacterial wound biofilms in vitro and in vivo. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(1):13-24.
15. Skog, E. et al. A randomized trial comparing cadexomer iodine and standard treatment in the out-patient management of chronic venous ulcers. Br. J. Dermatol. 109, 77–83 (1983).
16. Moberg, S., Hoffman, L., Grennert, M. L. & Holst, A. A randomized trial of cadexomer iodine in decubitus ulcers. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 31, 462–465 (1983).
17. Harcup, J. W. & Saul, P. A. A study of the effect of cadexomer iodine in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Br. J. Clin. Pract. 40, 360–4 (1986).
18. Hillstrom, L. Iodosorb compared to standard treatment in chronic venous leg ulcers - a multicenter study. Acta Chir Scan Supple 544, 53–56 (1988).
19. Akiyama, H., Oono, T., Saito, M. & Iwatsuki, K. Assessment of cadexomer iodine against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in vivo and in vitro using confocal laser scanning microscopy. J. Dermatol. 31, 529–34 (2004).
20. Zhou, L. H., Nahm, W. K., Badiavas, E., Yufit, T. & Falanga, V. Slow release iodine preparation and wound healing: in vitro effects consistent with lack of in vivo toxicity in human chronic wounds. Br. J. Dermatol. 146, 365–74 (2002).
21. Hesler, B. Review of Perstorp Pharma Absorption Capacity Quality Assurance Data for IODOSORB/IODOFLEX Dressings. Smith+Nephew Report. DS/17/365/R. (2017).
22. Nherera, L. M. et al. Estimating the Clinical Outcomes and Cost Differences Between Standard Care With and Without Cadexomer Iodine in the Management of Chronic Venous Leg Ulcers Using a Markov Model. Ostomy.
Wound. Manage. 62, 26–40 (2016).
23. Roche ED, Woodmansey EJ, Yang Q, et al. Cadexomer iodine effectively reduces bacterial biofilm in porcine wounds ex vivo and in vivo. Int Wound J. 2019;1-10 [in press].

Download the infection management pathway

Need more information?

For further information and guidance on our infection management treatment

Contact us