Background/Objectives: Chronic wounds represent a significant socioeconomic burden, affecting 1–2% of the global population. Wound healing is a complex process involving inflammation, cell proliferation, and tissue remodeling, but factors such as infections, diabetes, aging, and poor nutrition can impair recovery, leading to chronic wounds. Given these challenges, researchers have explored topical probiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics as alternatives strategies. Strains like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium contribute to skin restoration by producing antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory compounds, offering a novel approach to cutaneous restoration. Our study aims to address the potential effects of topical probiotic, synbiotic, and postbiotic formulations for wound healing applications by means of a broad scoping review and evidence-gap mapping. Methods: A systematic literature search of preclinical studies (in vitro and in vivo) was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 2025), yielding 3052 articles after duplicates removal, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Results: These studies were published between 1986 and 2024, mostly by China (27.3%) and Iran (25.0%). Probiotics were frequently evaluated among the studies included (47.7%) (with Lactobacillus plantarum being the most assessed strain), followed by postbiotics (36.4%) (with predominant use of cell-free supernatants) and synbiotics (15.9%) (especially fructooligosaccharides). Dosage forms included gels (44.4%), films (15.6%), and ointments (13.3%). Conclusions: Most studies indicate that probiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics have antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties, while promoting angiogenesis, tissue regeneration, and skin barrier restoration. The use of different delivery systems may additionally enhance therapeutic outcomes by accelerating wound closure, reducing bacterial load, and modulating immune response. However, methodological limitations in animal studies highlight the need for greater experimental rigor. Further robust clinical trials are essential to confirm efficacy and safety before clinical application of these formulations.

Background/Objectives: Cutaneous melanoma is a potent neoplasm whose advancement is linked to catecholamine-induced angiogenesis through β-adrenergic receptors. Propranolol (PROP), a non-selective β-blocker, holds potential in oncology, but its systemic side effects restrict its viability. This study aims to nanoencapsulate PROP in Eudragit RL^®100 polymeric nanocapsules for topical melanoma treatment. Methods: Nanocapsules were created through interfacial deposition of preformed polymer and characterized in terms of particle size, zeta potential, pH, drug content, and encapsulation efficiency. In vitro evaluations include release profile, antioxidant activity, bioadhesiveness, hemolysis, cytotoxicity, and antitumor effect on melanoma cells. Additionally, migration assays were conducted. Results: The nanocapsules displayed an acidic pH, an average size of 151 nm, and a positive zeta potential. An encapsulation efficiency of 81% was achieved, even with the hydrochloride form of the drug. The release profile exhibited sustained release of PROP, showcasing enhanced antioxidant activity in the nanoencapsulated form. The formulations also exhibited significant bioadhesion with mucin and an in vitro hemolysis rate over 50%, attributed to the cationic polymer and surfactants present. Moreover, in the cell viability assays, the NC-PROP formulations significantly reduced melanoma cell viability. In the migration assay, both the nanocapsules with and without the drug significantly inhibited cell migration, supporting the potential therapeutic benefits of these formulations. Conclusions: The nanoencapsulation of PROP in Eudragit RL^®100 presents a viable strategy for topical treatment of cutaneous melanoma, enhancing release duration and reducing systemic effects. The assessments indicated distinct physical properties and substantial therapeutic potential.

Background/Objectives: Melanoma remains one of the most aggressive skin cancers worldwide, with rising incidence and persistent therapeutic challenges, particularly in advanced diseases. Drug repositioning has emerged as a cost- and time-efficient strategy for identifying adjunctive treatments, and antihypertensive medications have attracted attention for their potential off-target antitumor and immunomodulatory effects. This scoping review aimed to map and critically appraise the evidence on the repositioning of antihypertensive drugs for melanoma management. Methods: The review followed the JBI methodology, and the results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were conducted in July 2025 and updated in May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. For Methodological Quality and Risk-of-bias assessment, the SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool was employed for animal studies. Results: This review included 37 studies. β-Blockers, particularly propranolol, were the most frequently investigated agents (n = 21). Several studies reported antiproliferative, pro-apoptotic, antiangiogenic, and immunomodulatory effects; however, these findings were not uniform. Absent direct antiproliferative effects, biphasic dose responses, lack of angiogenic effects, and outcomes dependent on drug concentration, treatment schedule, and experimental model were also reported. Agents targeting the renin–angiotensin system and calcium channels similarly produced heterogeneous and context-dependent findings. The animal studies frequently presented high or unclear risk of bias, particularly because of incomplete reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding. No formal methodological quality assessment was performed for the in vitro studies. Conclusions: Antihypertensive agents, particularly β-blockers, show promising but heterogeneous preclinical signals in melanoma. However, the available evidence is not sufficient to establish reproducible efficacy or translational validity. Standardized and methodologically rigorous preclinical studies are required before these agents can be considered for clinical investigation as adjunctive melanoma therapies.