The effects of topical mafenide acetate application on skin graft survival in bacterial contaminated wounds.

BACKGROUND: Infection related skin graft loss still remains as a common problem even with the use of systemic antibiotics. Mafenide acetate (Sulfamylon) is a topical antimicrobial agent with a wide spectrum of antimicrobial activity. Since mafenide acetate has the ability to penetrate the burn eschar, it was preferred in the treatment of infected full-thickness skin grafts. We investigated the effects of topical Mafenide acetate application on graft survival in an experimental model of contaminated wound beds in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight male Wistar albino rats were included in the study. A full-thickness skin graft (FTSG) was harvested from the back region and the wound bed was inoculated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The same FTSG was sutured in place. Rats were divided into 4 groups. In groups 1 and 2, wound care was performed with gauze and hydrofiber dressings respectively. In groups 3 and 4, Mafenide acetate soaked hydrofiber and Mafenide acetate soaked gauze dressings were used respectively. The dressings were closed for 4 days in all groups. The rats in groups 1 and 2 received dressing changes every day. The dressing of the rats in group 3 was changed once every two days. The dressing of the rats in group 4 was changed twice a day. RESULTS: In groups 3 and 4, the graft survival rates decreased significantly from day 7 to day 14 in all groups. Histologically, detachment at the dermoepidermal junction, disorganization of collagen along with increased numbers of fibroblasts and a decrease in graft adhesion to the wound bed were determined in Mafenide acetate-treated groups. CONCLUSION: In rats treated with Mafenide acetate, graft survival was higher on day 7 and gradually decreased towards day 14. Application of a 2.5% solution of Mafenide acetate longer than 7 days on inoculated skin grafts in a rat model causes significant cytotoxicity and graft loss.

Improving the antimicrobial activity of old antibacterial drug mafenide: Schiff bases and their bioactivity targeting resistant pathogens.

Background: Increasing rates of acquired resistance have justified the critical need for novel antimicrobial drugs. One viable concept is the modification of known drugs. Methods & results: 21 mafenide-based compounds were prepared via condensation reactions and screened for antimicrobial efficacy, which demonstrated promising activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, pathogenic fungi and mycobacterial strains (minimum inhibitory concentrations from 3.91 µM). Importantly, they retained activity against a panel of superbugs (methicillin- and vancomycin-resistant staphylococci, enterococci, multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis) without any cross-resistance. Unlike mafenide, most of its imines were bactericidal. Toxicity to HepG2 cells was also investigated. Conclusion: Schiff bases were significantly more active than the parent drug, with iodinated salicylidene and 5-nitrofuran/thiophene-methylidene scaffolds being preferred in identifying the most promising drug candidates.

Phenylalanine conjugated supramolecular hydrogels developed from the mafenide and flurbiprofen multidrug for biological applications.

A well-known nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), flurbiprofen (FLR), was first conjugated individually with two naturally occurring amino acids such as L-phenylalanine (PHE) and L-alanine (ALA). These covalent amidic bioconjugates were further reacted individually with mafenide (a drug for treating burn wounds) and amantadine (an antiviral drug) to develop primary ammonium monocarboxylate (PAM) salts. Interestingly, both the PHE-containing multidrug salts exhibited significant gelation ability with various solvents including biologically potent water or methyl salicylate (MS). The isolated hydrogel (HG) as well as all the organogels obtained from multidrug gelators were extensively characterized by dynamic rheology and rheoreversibility studies. The hydrogel of FLR·PHE·MAF and MS gels of FLR·PHE·AMN/FLR·AMN were also selectively characterized by table-top and FEG-TEM analyses. The temperature-dependent 1H-NMR spectroscopy of the selected HG further provided insights into the gelation mechanism and the only isolated single-crystal of the weakly diffracted gelator FLR·AMN also revealed the presence of 1D hydrogen-bonded networks. The pure hydrogelator FLR·PHE·MAF salt (which is also an ambidextrous gelator) was found to be promising in both mechanical (rheoreversible) and biological applications and was found to be effective in cytotoxicity, biocompatibility, anti-cancer activity (MTT and cell migration assay), antibacterial response (zone inhibition, turbidity, INT, and resazurin assay) and haemolysis studies.

Supramolecular Hydrogels Developed from Mafenide and Indomethacin as a Plausible Multidrug Self-Delivery System as Antibacterial and Anti-inflammatory Topical Gels.

Following a structural rationale, a series of simple organic salts derived from mafenide (a drug for treating burn wounds) and n-alkyl carboxylic acids (Me-(CH2)n-COOH; n = 1-3, 10-15) and various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), namely, indomethacin (IND), diclofenac (DIC), meclofenamic acid (MEC), tolfenamic acid (TOL), and flufenamic acid (FLU) (designated as salts 1-14, respectively) were synthesized as potential hydrogelators. Gelation studies revealed that mafenide n-alkyl carboxylates with n = 11-14, i.e., salts 5-8, and the indomethacin salt of mafenide, i.e., salt 10, were hydrogelators. The corresponding hydrogels, namely, 5(HG)-8(HG) and 10(HG), were characterized by table-top and dynamic rheology and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM). Single-crystal structures of the nongelator salts 1-3 and the gelator salt 10 were determined by X-ray diffraction. The results obtained from various studies, which included the solubility, biostability, biocompatibility (MTT assay), and anti-inflammatory (PGE2 assay) response of salt 10, the antibacterial response (zone inhibition assay) of salt 10, its components, and 10(HG), and the release of salt 10in vitro from the corresponding hydrogel bed to the bulk solvent at 37 °C in 24 h, suggested their plausible use in developing multidrug-derived topical hydrogels for self-delivery applications.

Mafenide derivatives inhibit neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease by regulating pyroptosis.

The main mechanism of pyroptosis is Caspase-1-mediated GSDMD cleavage, and GSDMD is also the executive protein of pyroptosis. Our previous study has shown that mafenide can inhibit pyroptosis by inhibiting the GSDMD-Asp275 site to suppress cleavage. In this study, sulfonamide was used as the parent nucleus structure to synthesize sulfa-4 and sulfa-20. Screening of drug activity in the pyroptosis model of BV2 and iBMDM cell lines revealed the efficacy of five compounds were superior to mafenide, which exerted a better inhibitory effect on the occurrence of pyroptosis. For in vivo assay, Sulfa-4 and Sulfa-22 were intervened in the neuroinflammation APP/PS1 mice. As a result, the administration of Sulfa-4 and Sulfa-22 could significantly inhibit the activation of microglia, decrease the expression of inflammatory factors in the central nervous system and simultaneously suppress the production of p30-GSDMD as well as the expression of upstream NLRP3 inflammasome and Caspase-1 protein. Immunoprecipitation and Biotin-labelled assay confirmed the targeted binding relationship of Sulfa-4 and Sulfa-22 with GSDMD protein in the iBMDM model in vitro. In this study, we investigated a new type inhibitor of GSDMD cleavage, which exerted a good inhibitory effect on pyroptosis and provided new references for the development of inflammatory drugs in the future.

Investigation on the mechanism of mafenide in inhibiting pyroptosis and the release of inflammatory factors.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to investigate the roles and mechanism of mafenide (MAF) in targeted inhibition of Gasdermin D (GSDMD) cleavage and in suppressing pyroptosis. METHODS: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and Nigericin were used to induce pyroptosis in mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (iBMDM) and mouse microglia (BV2). Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release rate and Propidium Iodide (PI) uptake rate were used to detect cytotoxicity, Western blot was used to detect the protein expression, and Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was utilized to detect the expression of inflammatory factors from culture medium. MAF was labeled with biotin and subsequently subjected to Pull-down assay to detect its binding to GSDMD. GSDMD-Asp275 site was further mutated to validate the binding of MAF to GSDMD. Finally, the effects of MAF on inflammatory factor release and microglial activation were confirmed in the APP/PS12 animal model. RESULTS: MAF could inhibit pyroptosis in iBMDM and microglia BV2, and decrease the release of inflammatory factors. MAF could inhibit GSDMD cleavage by directly binding to the GSDMD-Asp275 site, while the expression of p30-GSDMD was simultaneously down-regulated and the release of inflammatory factors was decreased. MAF could reduce the levels of inflammatory factors in cerebrospinal fluid and peripheral blood of APP/PS1 mice, and suppress the activation of microglia. CONCLUSION: The mechanism underlying the regulation of MAF on inflammatory response was correlated with the inhibition of pyroptosis. MAF could inhibit GSDMD cleavage by directly binding to GSDMD.

Debridement of Sulfur Mustard Skin Burns: A Comparison of Three Methods.

Sulfur mustard burns are characterized by delayed symptoms, slow healing, and recurrence after closure. Incomplete debridement at the level of the basement membrane is the postulated cause. Graham pioneered laser debridement of mustard burns. For field or mass-casualty use, saline wet-to-wet or antibiotic-soak debridement is more practical. In this study, we compared laser, saline, and antibiotic debridement in a porcine model of deep partial-thickness injury. Deep-dermal sulfur mustard burns were produced in 18 anesthetized Gottingen minipigs using 10-µl saturated vapor cap exposure time of 90 minutes. Debridement was started 48 hours postinjury and consisted of a single laser treatment; 5 days of 5% aqueous mafenide acetate wet-to-wet dressings; or 7 to 12 days of saline wet-to-wet dressings. Wounds were treated with daily silver sulfadiazine for 30 days and, then, assessed by histopathology, silver-ion analysis, colorimetry, and evaporimetry. All wounds healed well with no sign of infection. Antibiotic debridement showed no advantage over saline debridement. There were no significant differences between groups for colorimetry or evaporimetry. Histopathology was graded on a mustard-specific scale of 1 to 15 where higher values indicate better healing. Mean histology scores were 13.6 for laser, 13.9 for mafenide, and 14.3 for saline. Saline debridement statistically outperformed laser (P < .05) but required the longest debridement time. Laser debridement had the benefit of requiring a single treatment rather than daily dressing changes, significantly decreasing need for wound care and personnel resources. Development of a ruggedized laser for field use is a countermeasures priority.

Pharmacological screening of a new alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, mafedine, in zebrafish.

Pharmacological agents acting at alpha-2 adrenergic receptors are widely used in physiology and neuroscience research. Mounting evidence of their potential utility in clinical and experimental psychopharmacology, necessitates new models and novel model organisms for their screening. Here, we characterize behavioral effects of mafedine (6-oxo-1-phenyl-2- (phenylamino)-1,6-dihydropyrimidine-4-sodium olate), a novel drug with alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonistic effects, in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) in the novel tank test of anxiety and activity. Following an acute 20-min exposure, mafedine at 60 mg/L produced a mild psychostimulant action with some anxiogenic-like effects. Repeated acute 20-min/day administration of mafedine for 7 consecutive days at 1, 5 and 10 mg/L had a similar action on fish behavior as an acute exposure to 60 mg/L. Since mafedine demonstrated robust behavioral effects in zebrafish - a sensitive vertebrate aquatic model, it is likely that it may modulate rodent and human behavior as well. Thus, further studies are needed to explore this possibility in detail, and whether it may foster clinical application of mafedine and related alpha-2 adrenergic agents.

The Effective Duration of Antimicrobial Activity of Mafenide Acetate After Reconstitution.

Mafenide acetate is an effective but costly antimicrobial solution used for burn wounds. The package insert instructs the user to discard unused solution within 48 hours of opening. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of mafenide acetate beyond 48 hours after reconstitution, to possibly reduce cost by eliminating product waste. Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were used to seed Mueller-Hinton agar plates. Filter paper disks were then saturated with 5% mafenide acetate at 0, 2, 7, 14, 30, and 60 days after reconstitution. Disks were then placed on the seeded agar plates and incubated. After incubation, the zone of inhibition around each plate was measured. A zone of inhibition of 2 mm or greater was indicative of susceptibility. Mafenide acetate remained efficacious, with a zone of inhibition of >2 mm to both organisms at 0, 2, 7, 14, 30, and 60 days after mafenide acetate reconstitution. This in vitro study demonstrates that the antimicrobial activity of mafenide acetate remains present for at least 60 days after reconstitution. Unused mafenide may not need to be discarded at 48 hours after opening. Reducing wasted product has the potential to translate into cost savings.

Thermal stability of mafenide and amphotericin B topical solution.

OBJECTIVE: Fungal infections remain a major cause of mortality in the burned population. Mafenide acetate/amphotericin B solution (SMAT) has been used topically for prophylaxis and treatment of these infections. Current manufacturer guidelines only guarantee the stability of mafenide solution and amphotericin B at room temperature. Additionally, the recommended maximum storage time for mafenide solution is 48h, leading to significant financial and material loss when unused solutions are discarded. The purpose of this study was to characterize the chemical stability, structure and bioactivity of SMAT stored at 2°C, 25°C, and 40°C for up to 90 days. METHODS: Stability analyses of SMAT solutions containing 2.5% or 5% mafenide plus 2µg/mL amphotericin B were performed using high performance liquid chromatography. Chemical structure was assessed using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Bioactivity against clinically relevant species was examined. RESULTS: The chemical structure and stability of mafenide did not change over 90days at all temperatures. Amphotericin B was undetectable in SMAT solutions after two days at high temperatures, which was slowed by refrigerated storage. Against Staphylococcus aureus, SMAT activity began to decrease generally between two and seven days. Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, activity slowly tapered and was gone by day 90. SMAT retained high bioactivity against Candida albicans for over 40days and was not affected by temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The amphotericin B component of SMAT is degraded within 2days under warm storage. While mafenide was stable over 90 days, the bioactivity of SMAT solution may be lost within 2days as well.

2.5% Mafenide Acetate: A Cost-Effective Alternative to the 5% Solution for Burn Wounds.

Mafenide acetate is an antimicrobial agent used to decrease the bacterial load for burn wounds. The 5% solution is more commonly used yet double the cost of its 2.5% counterpart. This study aims to evaluate outcomes and cost associated with the use of 2.5 vs 5% mafenide acetate formulation in the adult burn population. Adult patients (≥18 years) receiving 2.5% mafenide acetate during an 11-month period between 2014 and 2015, corresponding to a policy change in favor of the use of 2.5% mafenide acetate, were queried. Historical controls, patients receiving 5% mafenide acetate, were also reviewed during an 11-month period between 2013 and 2014. A retrospective review was performed comparing wound infection rate, bacteremia, sepsis, pneumonia, duration of mafenide therapy, length of hospital stay, mortality, and cost. A total of 54 and 65 patients received 2.5 and 5% mafenide acetate, respectively. There was no difference in wound infection, bacteremia, sepsis, pneumonia, duration of treatment, and mortality between the two groups. No adverse events occurred in either group directly related to mafenide. Candida and Staph species were the two most common isolates in the 2.5% group, whereas Pseudomonas and Staph species were the most common in the 5% arm. The mean cost of 2.5% mafenide therapy was $1494.92 compared with $3741.39 for 5% mafenide acetate. The 2.5% concentration demonstrates to be an equally efficacious and cost-effective alternative to the 5% concentration. Burn centers should consider the use of the more dilute preparation for burn wound infection prophylaxis as it may reduce the cost without compromising patient safety.

Hydrofiber Dressing Saturated With Mafenide Acetate Extends the Duration of Antimicrobial Activity.

Mafenide acetate is used in some burn wounds for its ability to penetrate eschar but requires frequent uncomfortable dressing changes for its application. The authors hypothesize that hydrofiber dressings will hold mafenide acetate solution for an extended period of time and maintain antimicrobial activity longer than traditional gauze, thus possibly obviating the need for frequent dressing changes. Four experimental arms included: 1) hydrofiber, stored on a dry well plate as control, 2) gauze saturated with 2.5% mafenide acetate, stored on nonsterile porcine skin, 3) hydrofiber saturated with mafenide acetate, stored on dry well plate, and 4) hydrofiber saturated with mafenide acetate, stored on nonsterile porcine skin. At 0, 24, 48, and 72 hours, a 1-cm disk was cut from the dressing sheet of each study arm, placed on agar plates seeded with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and incubated for 24 hours, and the zone of inhibition was measured. A zone of 2 mm or greater was indicative of susceptibility. Each arm of the experiment was performed four times to demonstrate reproducibility. Plain hydrofiber (control) demonstrated no zone of inhibition at any time point, thereby possessing no antimicrobial activity alone. Gauze saturated with mafenide acetate did not reliably demonstrate antimicrobial activity beyond 0 hours. Hydrofiber saturated with mafenide acetate, whether stored on a dry well plate or nonsterile porcine skin, consistently possessed sustained antimicrobial activity as demonstrated by zones of inhibition greater than 2 mm to both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. Mafenide acetate-soaked hydrofiber dressings stay moist and maintain antimicrobial activity against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa for at least 72 hours without repeated soaks.

Care of the Burn Casualty in the Prolonged Field Care Environment.

Burns are frequently encountered on the modern battlefield, with 5% - 20% of combat casualties expected to sustain some burn injury. Addressing immediate life-threatening conditions in accordance with the MARCH protocol (massive hemorrhage, airway, respirations, circulation, hypothermia/head injury) remains the top priority for burn casualties. Stopping the burning process, total burn surface area (TBSA) calculation, fluid resuscitation, covering the wounds, and hypothermia management are the next steps. If transport to definitive care is delayed and the prolonged field care stage is entered, the provider must be prepared to provide for the complex resuscitation and wound care needs of a critically ill burn casualty.

A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution.

The optimal concentration of mafenide acetate solution for use in the treatment of burns is unknown. Despite data supporting the use of a 2.5% solution, 5% formulation is traditionally used, and has been the highest-costing medication on formulary. The aim of the current study is to evaluate cost and patient outcomes associated with a new policy implementing the use of 2.5% solution in burn patients and restricting the 5% formulation to specific indications only. A retrospective review of all patients receiving mafenide acetate solution at a single pediatric burn hospital was performed before and after the initiation of the new policy on the use of 5 vs 2.5% solution. Duration of therapy, adverse events, cost, incidence of wound infection, and bacteremia were analyzed. In 2009, 69 patients were treated with 5% mafenide acetate solution for a total cost of $125,000 ($1811 per patient). In 2010, after the initiation of the policy, 48 patients were treated: 19 received 5% mafenide acetate solution with appropriate indication, whereas the remaining 29 received 2.5% solution for a total cost of $38,632 ($804 per patient). There were no significant changes in the incidence of bacteremia or wound infection. No side effects of either solution were noted. Under certain conditions, a 2.5% mafenide acetate solution appears sufficient. In this multinational pediatric burn hospital, the use of a 2.5% solution was not associated with increased bacteremia or wound infection, and proved to be more cost-effective.

In vitro toxicity and activity of Dakin's solution, mafenide acetate, and amphotericin B on filamentous fungi and human cells.

OBJECTIVES: Posttraumatic invasive fungal infections threaten critically injured combat-related injuries and require a combination of extensive surgery and systemic antifungal therapy, along with topical antimicrobials used adjunctively to control the infection. We evaluated the in vitro activity of topical agents in varying combinations and concentrations against molds from patients that were responsible for wound invasive fungal infections and the topical agents' toxicity to human cells. METHODS: Mafenide acetate solutions (2.5%, 5%, and 7.5%), amphotericin B solutions (2 µg/mL, 2 mg/mL, and 20 mg/mL), SMAT (5% mafenide acetate in combination with 2 µg/mL, 2 mg/mL, and 20 mg/mL amphotericin B), and Dakin's solutions (buffered sodium hypochlorite) (0.5%, 0.25%, and 0.125% and 10-fold serial dilutions of 0.25%-0.00000025%) were evaluated for antifungal activity against 4 molds using a time-kill assay using standard conidial suspensions of 5 × 10(4) colony-forming units per milliliter. To assess cellular toxicity, confluent monolayers of human keratinocytes, dermal fibroblasts, and osteoblasts were exposed to these topical agents. Based upon efficacy and toxicity ratios, an additional 10 molds were screened with selected concentrations of the topical agents for antifungal activity and toxicity. RESULTS: All the topical agents seemed to have a dose-dependent killing with only mafenide acetate showing time killing associated with prolonged contact. There was overall evidence of dose-dependent cytotoxicity of the various topical agents against the various cell lines tested, but there did not seem to be increased cell death with continued exposure to the agents over time. Dakin's solution exhibited dose-dependent toxicity and efficacy with 0.00025% appearing to optimize those parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Mafenide acetate and amphotericin B did not seem to persistently meet the toxicity and efficacy balance as consistently as Dakin's solution.

[Effects of topical agents for burns on Acinetobacter baumannii within biofilm].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the antimicrobial activity of topical agents commonly used for burns on Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) in both free and biofilm states, and their synergistic effect with ambroxol on AB within biofilm. METHODS: Eleven AB strains were isolated from wound excretion, respiratory tract, and blood of patients hospitalized in our hospital from August 2005 to April 2007. (1) The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) of mafenide acetate and chlorhexidine acetate to free AB (including drug-resistant, drug-sensitive, and standard strains) were determined by dilution method. (2) AB was cultured with LB or TSB medium for 12, 24, and 48 h to form biofilm, and it was treated with above-mentioned two topical agents in MBC (mafenide group and chlorhexidine group) for 30 min. Biofilm not treated by topical agent was used as control group. The biofilm thickness was determined with confocal laser scanning microscope. The proportion of living bacteria in biofilm was calculated. AB biofilm in each topical agent group was mixed and inoculated into LB culture dish to observe the growth of bacteria. (3) AB was cultured with LB medium for 48 h to form biofilm, which was respectively treated by above-mentioned two topical agents in MBC (mafenide group and chlorhexidine group) and combination of each topical agent with 3.75 mg/mL ambroxol solution (ambroxol + mafenide group and ambroxol + chlorhexidine group) for 30 min. Biofilm not treated by topical agents was used as control group. Growth of bacteria in biofilm was detected with MTT method (denoted as absorbance value). Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance and LSD-t test. RESULTS: (1) MIC of mafenide acetate and chlorhexidine acetate for free AB was respectively 25.00 mg/mL and 0.03 mg/mL. MBC of both agents for free AB was the same as their MIC. (2) Among three groups, the thickness of biofilm of sensitive AB was thicker than that of drug-resistant bacteria at most of the time points. Compared with those in control group, biofilm thickness and proportion of living bacteria in biofilm were slightly decreased in mafenide and chlorhexidine groups. The growth of bacteria was abundant in each group. (3) Absorbance value of drug-resistant bacteria in control, mafenide, and chlorhexidine groups was respectively 0.776 ± 0.071, 0.625 ± 0.063, and 0.420 ± 0.068. Absorbance value of drug-resistant bacteria in ambroxol + mafenide group (0.174 ± 0.089) was significantly lower than that of control group (t = 11.823, P = 0.000) and mafenide group (t = 9.248, P < 0.01). Absorbance value of ambroxol + chlorhexidine group (0.178 ± 0.044) was significantly lower than that of control group (t = 16.009, P = 0.000) and chlorhexidine group (t = 6.681, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-resistant AB forms biofilm readily, which prevents topical agents from killing the bacteria inside. Combined use of ambroxol with topical agents gives synergistic effect on killing AB in biofilm in the wound.

Effects of topical agents for burns on Acinetobacter baumannii within biofilm / 中华烧伤杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To observe the antimicrobial activity of topical agents commonly used for burns on Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) in both free and biofilm states, and their synergistic effect with ambroxol on AB within biofilm.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Eleven AB strains were isolated from wound excretion, respiratory tract, and blood of patients hospitalized in our hospital from August 2005 to April 2007. (1) The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) of mafenide acetate and chlorhexidine acetate to free AB (including drug-resistant, drug-sensitive, and standard strains) were determined by dilution method. (2) AB was cultured with LB or TSB medium for 12, 24, and 48 h to form biofilm, and it was treated with above-mentioned two topical agents in MBC (mafenide group and chlorhexidine group) for 30 min. Biofilm not treated by topical agent was used as control group. The biofilm thickness was determined with confocal laser scanning microscope. The proportion of living bacteria in biofilm was calculated. AB biofilm in each topical agent group was mixed and inoculated into LB culture dish to observe the growth of bacteria. (3) AB was cultured with LB medium for 48 h to form biofilm, which was respectively treated by above-mentioned two topical agents in MBC (mafenide group and chlorhexidine group) and combination of each topical agent with 3.75 mg/mL ambroxol solution (ambroxol + mafenide group and ambroxol + chlorhexidine group) for 30 min. Biofilm not treated by topical agents was used as control group. Growth of bacteria in biofilm was detected with MTT method (denoted as absorbance value). Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance and LSD-t test.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) MIC of mafenide acetate and chlorhexidine acetate for free AB was respectively 25.00 mg/mL and 0.03 mg/mL. MBC of both agents for free AB was the same as their MIC. (2) Among three groups, the thickness of biofilm of sensitive AB was thicker than that of drug-resistant bacteria at most of the time points. Compared with those in control group, biofilm thickness and proportion of living bacteria in biofilm were slightly decreased in mafenide and chlorhexidine groups. The growth of bacteria was abundant in each group. (3) Absorbance value of drug-resistant bacteria in control, mafenide, and chlorhexidine groups was respectively 0.776 ± 0.071, 0.625 ± 0.063, and 0.420 ± 0.068. Absorbance value of drug-resistant bacteria in ambroxol + mafenide group (0.174 ± 0.089) was significantly lower than that of control group (t = 11.823, P = 0.000) and mafenide group (t = 9.248, P < 0.01). Absorbance value of ambroxol + chlorhexidine group (0.178 ± 0.044) was significantly lower than that of control group (t = 16.009, P = 0.000) and chlorhexidine group (t = 6.681, P < 0.01).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Drug-resistant AB forms biofilm readily, which prevents topical agents from killing the bacteria inside. Combined use of ambroxol with topical agents gives synergistic effect on killing AB in biofilm in the wound.</p>