Biofilms are linked to delayed wound healing1-3
Around 78% of chronic wounds contain a biofilm4. Biofilms are difficult to treat as they provide tolerance to antimicrobial treatments5-7 and the host immune response8-10
Superior efficacy against biofilm proven across different lab models5,11-13
IODOSORB™ has a long history of effectiveness against biofilm with superior results compared to other topical antimicrobials such as PHMB, silver and povidone iodine.5
In line with the biofilm experts’ recommendations14 on selecting an effective anti-biofilm dressing, IODOSORB has been tested and shown to be more effective than AquacelTM Ag+ across five challenging and clinically relevant biofilm models.11-13
Evidence: IODOSORB against biofilm

|
‡ Staphylococcus aureus mature biofilms; $ MRSA biofilms; § Mixed bacterial cultures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01, Staphylococcus aureus Mu50, and Enterococcus faecalis V583; ¥ Treatment every 24 h for 48 h total. * Model 1: Colony; Model 2: DripFlow; Model 3: Lubbock; Model 4: Mouse; Model 5: Porcine explant ** AquacelTM Ag+ is a product formerly known as AquacelTM Ag+ Extra.
|
References
1.Roche ED, et al. Wound Repair Regen 2012; 20: 537–43;
2. Schierle CF, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2009;17: 354–9;
3. Bjarnsholt T, et al. Wound Rep Reg. 2008;16:2-10;
4. Malone, M. et al. J. Wound Care 25,12, 20–25 (2016);
5. Phillips P, et al. Int Wound J. 2013:1-15;
6. Wolcott, R. D. et al. J. Wound Care. 2010 .19, 320–8;
7. Stewart PS & Costerton JW. 2001. Lancet (London, England) 358, 135–8;
8. Jesaitis AJ, et al. 2003. J. Immunol. 171, 4329–4339;
9. Bjarnsholt, T. et al. Microbiology 2005. 151, 373–383;
10. Cochrane, DM, et al. 1998. J. Med. Microbiol. 27, 255–61;
11.Fitzgerald, D. J. et al. Wound Repair Regen. 25: 13-24 (2016) ;
12. Schultz, G. & Yang. Poster presented at WUWHS Florence (2016);
13. Oates J.L. et al. Poster presented at SAWC, Atlanta.(2016);
14.Schultz et al. Wound Repair Regen (2017); approved article;
15. Malone, M. et al. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 00: 1–9;