Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Topical Polypeptide Gel in Diabetic Ulcers: Clinical Insights Into a New Adjunctive Treatment Modality Stella Gracia Octarica; Suci Widhiati; Endra Yustin Ellistasari; Nugrohoaji Dharmawan; Indah Julianto
Journal of Social Research Vol. 4 No. 10 (2025): Journal of Social Research
Publisher : International Journal Labs

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55324/josr.v4i9.2794

Abstract

Diabetic ulcers are a common and challenging complication of diabetes, contributing to morbidity, infection, and a high risk of amputation. Innovative adjuncts, such as topical polypeptide gel, which contains amino acids to support tissue regeneration, are proposed to accelerate wound healing; however, supporting clinical data are limited. A quasi-experimental analysis was conducted in 11 patients. Each received a daily topical 7% polypeptide gel in addition to standard care. Ulcer area was measured at baseline (day 0) and after 14 days using digital documentation analysis using ImageJ. The primary outcome was the percentage reduction in ulcer size. Patients were analysed for associations between percentage of improvement with age, gender, diabetes type, and ulcer site. Eleven patients with diabetic ulcers completed the 14-day treatment protocol. The cohort comprised 54.5% females with a mean age of 54.1 ± 7.3 years and predominantly insulin-dependent diabetes (72.7%). Baseline ulcer area averaged 982.1 ± 1315.1 mm², reducing to 184.0 ± 297.7 mm² by day 14, representing an 86.2 ± 6.7% mean area reduction. All patients achieved ?76% healing, with 45.5% achieving ?90% area reduction and 9.1% achieving complete healing. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated statistically significant ulcer area reduction (Z = -2.934, p = 0.003). No significant associations were found between healing percentage and patient demographics, diabetes type, ulcer location, or comorbidity burden (all p > 0.05). No treatment-related adverse events were reported during the study period. Topical polypeptide gel demonstrated rapid wound surface area reduction in the majority of the subjects over 14 days, independent of patient age, gender, diabetes type, or ulcer location. These findings suggest its promise as an adjunctive early-phase therapy for diabetic ulcers.
Allergic Contact Dermatitis Caused By Daily Soap Products: One Case Report Shelly Lavenia Sambodo; Suci Widhiati
Journal of Social Research Vol. 4 No. 12 (2025): Journal of Social Research
Publisher : International Journal Labs

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55324/josr.v4i12.2896

Abstract

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a skin disorder resulting from contact with an allergenic substance. Most cases of ACD are caused by cosmetic ingredients and daily-use products. We report a case of ACD caused by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and fragrance in soap, confirmed by positive patch test results. A 29-year-old woman with chronic persistent itching that did not improve with medication presented to the Dermatovenereology Outpatient Clinic of Dr. Moewardi Hospital. She had a history of using virgin coconut oil (VCO) and various handwashing soaps. Dermatological examination revealed multiple erythematous macules with overlying scales and xerotic skin, suggestive of ACD. The patient underwent a patch test with standard materials as well as personal products she brought to confirm the diagnosis. The patch test showed a positive allergic reaction to Sunlight® liquid soap, Biore® liquid soap, Cerianerss® lychee-flavored VCO, One Scrub Onemed® 4%, and Paquito® liquid soap. Patch testing is an important and useful tool for diagnosing ACD. Although the procedure is simple, it requires several days for evaluation. In this case, we identified the products responsible for ACD in our patient and advised her to avoid them. Several substances with allergenic potential were identified by comparing product compositions with patch test results. However, these findings could not determine which specific compounds were allergenic. Hence, further patch testing of individual compounds is necessary.