4.7 Review

Bacteriophages, a New Therapeutic Solution for Inhibiting Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria Causing Wound Infection: Lesson from Animal Models and Clinical Trials

期刊

DRUG DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND THERAPY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 1867-1883

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S251171

关键词

bacteriophages; multidrug-resistant bacteria; new therapeutic solution; wound infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wound infection kills a large number of patients worldwide each year. Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are the most important colonizing pathogens of wounds that, with various virulence factors and impaired immune system, causes extensive tissue damage and nonhealing wounds. Furthermore, the septicemia caused by these pathogens increases the mortality rate due to wound infections. Because of the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in recent years, the use of antibiotics to inhibit these pathogens has been restricted, and the topical application of antibiotics in wound infections increases antibiotic resistance. Therefore, finding a new therapeutic strategy against wound infections is so essential since these infections have a destructive effect on the patient's mental health and high medical costs. In this review, we discussed the use of phages for the prevention of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, causing wound infection and their role in wound healing in animal models and clinical trials. The results showed that phages have a high ability to inhibit different wound infections caused by MDR bacteria, heal the wound faster, have lower side effects and toxicity, destroy bacterial biofilm, and they are useful in controlling immune responses. Many studies have used animal models to evaluate the function of phages, and this study appears to have a positive impact on the use of phages in clinical practice and the development of a new therapeutic approach to control wound infections, although there are still many limitations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据