TLC-NOSF dressings as a first-line local treatment of chronic wounds: a systematic review of clinical evidence.

Abstract

Objective: Several national and international guidelines recommend lipidocolloid technology with a nano-oligosaccharide factor (TLC-NOSF) dressings (UrgoStart dressing range, Laboratoires Urgo, France) for treating patients with chronic wounds. However, these dressings are still often reported as second-line options, potentially leading to loss of opportunity for patients and additional costs for payers. This review aimed to explore the reported wound healing and patient outcomes as well as the related costs when the dressings were used as first-line treatment in patients with different types of chronic wounds.

Method: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and Google Scholar) were searched up to 1 February 2024, without any language or time period limitations. Studies were eligible if the evaluated dressings had been used as a first-line treatment for chronic wounds, that is, as an integral part of the standard of care (SoC) at the patient's first presentation and/or in recent wounds. The main evaluation criteria included: wound healing rate; time to reach wound closure; change in patients' quality of life (QoL); and associated costs. The quality of evidence of the included studies was appraised using well-recognised risk-of-bias tools suitable for different study designs. A narrative synthesis describes the findings in three sections depending on the type of comparison. This report followed the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results: A total of 17 studies published between 2017 and 2024 met the eligibility criteria. A comparative analysis between TLC-NOSF dressings and standard dressings, both of which were used as first-line treatment, was reported in nine studies. A comparative analysis between the use of TLC-NOSF dressings as first-line and second-line treatments was reported in eight studies, and five studies reported a systematic use of the TLC-NOSF dressing as first-line treatment without a control group. Overall, the included studies had a relatively low risk of bias for the respective types of evidence. Data of 10,191 patients of both sexes and different age groups with a total of 10,203 wounds (diabetic foot ulcers, leg ulcers, pressure injuries, and other types of chronic wounds) were included in the analysis: 7775 treated with the evaluated dressing and 2428 treated with a comparator dressing. The data suggested that using TLC-NOSF as a first-line treatment for chronic wounds consistently resulted in significantly higher healing rates, shorter healing times, and cost savings compared with standard dressings used under similar conditions. Real-life evidence confirmed the results obtained in clinical trials and economic models, within similar ranges, regardless of the settings involved or of the characteristics of the patients and wounds treated. The wound healing rates ranged around 70-80% by week 20/24 and time-to-heal was reported on average around seven weeks, with slightly longer times reported in wounds with a more severe prognosis. Furthermore, the dressings were shown to improve patient QoL, and were well tolerated and accepted, supporting a wider adoption approach.

Conclusion: The results of this review are aligned with the current guidelines recommending the use of TLC-NOSF dressings in the treatment of patients with chronic wounds. They support its wider implementation as a first-line treatment and as an integral part of SoC for these wounds in the daily practice of all centres involved in their management.