Talk:Neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin/Archive 1

Timeline
What year did this product come out? Seems important to know. I'm trying to figure out why my mom put toothepaste on a burn I had in 1978! ClintJCL (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The following page shows a logo: Neosporin 50 Years of Healing. http://www.pfizerch.com/brand.aspx?id=319

This page says: #1 Doctor Recommended Brand for over 25 years. http://www.neosporin.com/firstaid/neosporin.asp?sec=0&page=15#Neosporin

Visit the Pfizer Consumer Healthcare website at www.pfizerch.com or call 1-800-223-0182. Tzs (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ingredients
correction/more information about gram positive and gram negative bacteria:

see http://www.neosporin.com/firstaid/neosporin.asp?sec=0&page=16 What type of active ingredients are in NEOSPORIN® First Aid Antibiotics? •	Neomycin Sulfate is in the aminoglycoside family of antibiotics active against gram positive and gram negative bacteria. •	Polymyxin B is a cationic polypeptide antibiotic active against gram positive and gram negative bacteria. •	Bacitracin Zinc is a cyclic polypeptide antibiotic effective against gram positive bacteria. (Please note that Bacitracin Zinc is not present in Maximum Strength NEOSPORIN® + Pain Relief First Aid Antibiotic/Pain Relieving Cream because it is not stable in a cream formulation.) •	Pramoxine is an external analgesic that provides temporary relief of pain or discomfort. (Please note that Pramoxine is not present in Original NEOSPORIN® First Aid Antibiotic Ointment, including Neo to Go!®.) Tzs (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Polysporin
Why does Polysporin redirect to the Neosporin article? Polysporin is a product produced by Johnson and Johnson, a competitor of Pfeizer. It is not an alias for this product. Syndaryl (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neosporin was sold to Johnson and Johnson I believe. Also they are nearly identical except polysporin does not contain neomycin Thetinguy (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * therefore it should not redirect surely if the composition is different, therefore it is a different drug and should not be confused with neosporin 86.13.83.35 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I've created a new Polysporin article. Note that Neosporin is not available everywhere that Polysporin is. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Manufacturer
The main article presently says that the product is sold in China as "Complex Polymyxin B Ointment". Assuming the aforementioned company is http://www.zjpharma.com.cn/, then the actual product name is "Compound Polymyxin B Ointment". The specific page discussing the drug is here: http://www.zjpharma.cn/products/200805/20080507085049_72.html. Can anyone verify that the name needs to be corrected? Equally important, should this article portray this Chinese brand as though it is something authorized by Johnson & Johnson? It looks more like a generic copy to me and probably ought to be presented as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulej (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"although the use of antibiotics has raised common concerns."
Someone cite this.

What exactly are "common concerns," anyway? Concerns that are everyday? Concerns that are in conjunction with some other concern? Concerns that aren't special? Seems like this isn't really saying what they want it to. 66.26.95.207 (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cited, dude. I've re-written that bit completely. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Speeding healing of wounds
While "it speeds healing of wounds" is literally true, it actually only speeds the healing of wounds which are on skin that is subjected to stretching. The advertising for Neosporin which claims "helps heal wounds 30% faster" seems to be a convenient ommision, its true, but it depends on where that wound is. The idea is that it keeps scabs from ripping when the skin is stretched. It has no regenerative properties which actually speeds growth of new skin cells, it just keeps scabs moist so they are pliable. But this only makes a difference on skin which is often stretched to a significant degree. It has anti-biotic agents because straight petroleum jelly, while serving the purpose of keeping the wound moist, provides a good breeding ground for unwanted bacteria. But if its not on skin that stretchs its better not to use it.

I'm not going to add this to the article because I don't have a source to cite yet (I was told this by a nurse, and it makes sense given the ingredients don't contain any magical regenerative snake oil). But if anyone can find anything, or has conflicting info, please tell.Brentt 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As always, the truth is more complex. I don't have time to divest myself to this at the moment, but for Brennt or any future Wikipedians, please consult: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&q=+healing+neosporin&spell=1


 * So far as I can tell, it appears that Neosporin aids in the healing of any wound, but only by preventing the formation of infection. Thus, after a point, the wound will stop receiving any meaningful benefit from application of neosporin. There are many articles which disagree, however, and some say the exact opposite.  This confusion is addressed in "Improved Wound Healing by Salves, Potions, or Witchcraft: Do They Really Work?"... by Thomas F. O'Donnell Jr, MD, Boston, MA.  He discusses that there is not enough real evidence to suggest either way, though there may have been articles published since this post or the article's publishing which could prove otherwise.  Please explore AltonBrownFTW 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Neosporin contains Vitamin E, which may help reduce scarring and speed healing. While I am not aware of any conclusive evidence with regards to its effects, it is a common practice to apply Vitamin E directly onto burns to reduce scaring, and many people can testify as to its effectiveness.  This is not a homde-remedy, there is solid science suggesting Vitamin E's benefits, hence the reason it is considered a nutrient for FDA purposes (it has a suggested daily intake). Works of Sweat (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness
I doesn't seem that the effectiveness is as clear cut as the article currently suggests. Here for example is a line from an article in the journal of family practice "The use of topical triple-antibiotic ointments significantly decreases infection rates in minor contaminated wounds compared with a petrolatum control." http://www.jfponline.com/pages.asp?aid=4765 --67.182.232.130 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

...Vitamin E...fasten the recovery....
'The Vitamin E contained in Neosporin is known to have "fasten" the recovery....' This use of "fasten" is new to me ?? Gloryroad (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the "benefits" section
I just read quickly through the two references that (currently) used to back up assessment of efficacy of Neosporin. I'm editing the section because from my reading, what's summarized in the wikipedia article is not actually what these studies show. Thus I'm not introducing new evidence, nor challenging the selection, just re-writing the summary to (in my view) better reflect what these two studies showed. I'm documenting my thinking here on the Talk page so that future editors know what the change was and why, in particular since I am effectively changing the meaning of what's there now significantly (Psm (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)).

(Ref 1) Draelos, ZD; Rizer, RL; Trookman, NS (2011). "A comparison of postprocedural wound care treatments: Do antibiotic-based ointments improve outcomes?". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 64 (3 Suppl): S23–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.11.010. .

(Ref 2) "Do topical antibiotics improve wound healing?" Diehr, Sabina; Hamp, Andrew; Jamieson, Barbara. Journal of Family Practice 56(2) 2007: 140+. Abstract: The use of topical triple-antibiotic ointments significantly decreases infection rates in minor contaminated wounds compared with a petrolatum control. Plain petrolatum ointment is equivalent to triple-antibiotic ointments for sterile wounds as a post-procedure wound dressing (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, based on randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/3613

At the time of my editing, the current efficacy summary said the following:

''Efficacy: One study (Ref 1) showed no evidence that covering a small wound with neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin provided any benefit greater than that of simple petroleum jelly (although this study admits the sample size was relatively small), while other studies showed that minor wounds treated with neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin had a decreased rate of infection. (Ref 2)''

However, Ref 1 doesn't talk about infection risks at all, only "irritation", which is what most people consider when deciding to use products like this. Furthermore, Ref 1 uses as its test only skin cuts that were performed in a sterile hospital environment. Ref 2, on the other hand, summarizes a number of different studies briefly, and does not in fact contradict Ref 1: instead, it finds that with normal, every-day cuts, Neosporin was dramatically more effective at reducing infection rates vs petroleum jelly (47% vs 15% in one study and 17.6% vs 4.5% in another). In other words, multiple studies showed that Neosporin cuts risk of infection by about two-thirds vs just using petroleum jelly, and from serious starting points (20-50% risk). Ref 2 also confirmed studies that showed no benefit in wounds from sterile environments, but for at least one of the studies referenced that I looked at, the sample size was too small. Basically, infection rates from surgical procedures at hospitals are so small, that the risk of complications from topical interactions start outweighing the increasingly statistically insignificant benefits of something like Neosporin vs just petroleum jelly.

Based on these two references, and the above reasoning, I am changing the "Efficacy" paragraph to the following:

''Efficacy: The use of triple-antibiotic ointments, such as Neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin, significantly decreases infection rates in minor-contaminated wounds (Ref 2). However, if the wound is sterile then the benefits are not statistically significant (Ref 1, 2)."

I am tempted to include a phrase at the end "and other possible negative effects of using such ointment may dominate", but I need a good reference first.