The Innate Immune System in Acute and Chronic Wounds.

Significance: This review article provides an overview of the critical roles of the innate immune system to wound healing. It explores aspects of dysregulation of individual innate immune elements known to compromise wound repair and promote nonhealing wounds. Understanding the key mechanisms whereby wound healing fails will provide seed concepts for the development of new therapeutic approaches. Recent Advances: Our understanding of the complex interactions of the innate immune system in wound healing has significantly improved, particularly in our understanding of the role of antimicrobials and peptides and the nature of the switch from inflammatory to reparative processes. This takes place against an emerging understanding of the relationship between human cells and commensal bacteria in the skin. Critical Issues: It is well established and accepted that early local inflammatory mediators in the wound bed function as an immunological vehicle to facilitate immune cell infiltration and microbial clearance upon injury to the skin barrier. Both impaired and excessive innate immune responses can promote nonhealing wounds. It appears that the switch from the inflammatory to the proliferative phase is tightly regulated and mediated, at least in part, by a change in macrophages. Defining the factors that initiate the switch in such macrophage phenotypes and functions is the subject of multiple investigations. Future Directions: The review highlights processes that may be useful targets for further investigation, particularly the switch from M1 to M2 macrophages that appears to be critical as dysregulation of this switch occurs during defective wound healing.

Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI). Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies. Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials, the pooled analysis of which is presented here. The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy, compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy, in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat (MITT) patient populations. METHODS: Adult patients with cSSSI requiring intravenous therapy received ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g each every 12 h) for 5-14 days. RESULTS: Of 1378 patients enrolled in both trials, 693 received ceftaroline and 685 received vancomycin plus aztreonam. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were similar for ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam in the CE (91.6% vs 92.7%) and MITT (85.9% vs 85.5%) populations, respectively, as well as in patients infected with MRSA (93.4% vs 94.3%). The rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of an adverse event, serious adverse events, and death also were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline achieved high clinical cure rates, was efficacious against cSSSI caused by MRSA and other common cSSSI pathogens, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. Ceftaroline has the potential to provide a monotherapy alternative for the treatment of cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00424190 for CANVAS 1 and NCT00423657 for CANVAS 2.

Bioluminescence imaging of glucose in tissue surrounding polyurethane and glucose sensor implants.

BACKGROUND: The bioluminescence technique was used to quantify the local glucose concentration in the tissue surrounding subcutaneously implanted polyurethane material and surrounding glucose sensors. In addition, some implants were coated with a single layer of adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs) because these cells improve the wound-healing response around biomaterials. METHODS: Control and ASC-coated implants were implanted subcutaneously in rats for 1 or 8 weeks (polyurethane) or for 1 week only (glucose sensors). Tissue biopsies adjacent to the implant were immediately frozen at the time of explant. Cryosections were assayed for glucose concentration profile using the bioluminescence technique. RESULTS: For the polyurethane samples, no significant differences in glucose concentration within 100 μm of the implant surface were found between bare and ASC-coated implants at 1 or 8 weeks. A glucose concentration gradient was demonstrated around the glucose sensors. For all sensors, the minimum glucose concentration of approximately 4 mM was found at the implant surface and increased with distance from the sensor surface until the glucose concentration peaked at approximately 7 mM at 100 μm. Then the glucose concentration decreased to 5.5-6.5 mM more than 100 μmm from the surface. CONCLUSIONS: The ASC attachment to polyurethane and to glucose sensors did not change the glucose profiles in the tissue surrounding the implants. Although most glucose sensors incorporate a diffusion barrier to reduce the gradient of glucose and oxygen in the tissue, it is typically assumed that there is no steep glucose gradient around the sensors. However, a glucose gradient was observed around the sensors. A more complete understanding of glucose transport and concentration gradients around sensors is critical.