Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 2:59 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 1:40 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01153633
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2014-04-01
First Post:
2010-06-28
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
True
Brief Title:
Trial on the Efficacy of Prontosan Wound Irrigation Solution and Prontosan Wound Gel
Sponsor:
B. Braun Ltd. Centre of Excellence Infection Control
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Pilot, Randomised, Double-blind, Controlled Clinical Trial on the Combined Efficacy of Prontosan Wound Irrigation Solution and Prontosan Wound Gel in the Reduction in Size and Change in Bioburden of Hard-to-heal Venous Leg Ulcers
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2014-03
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of Prontosan® Wound Irrigation Solution and Prontosan® Wound Gel in the treatment of hard-to heal venous leg ulcers compared to control saline irrigation solution and inactive gel by showing a reduction in size over a 12 week period.
Detailed Description:
SUMMARY
Sponsor: B. BRAUN Medical AG
Trade name: Prontosan® Wound Irrigation Solution Prontosan® Wound Gel
Active substance: Polihexanide (0.1%) Betaine (0.1%)
Study Duration (per patient):
13 weeks, including the 1 week run in period
Primary Objective:
To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of Prontosan® Wound Irrigation Solution and Prontosan® Wound Gel in the reduction of wound size of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers compared to control saline irrigation solution and inactive gel.
Secondary Objectives:
To assess the change in bio-burden (assessment of organisms present) and to determine local tolerance as well as reduction in pain and to monitor exudate control.
Methodology:
A pilot randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial at a single centre
Planned number of patients:
A sample size of N= 15 evaluable patients was estimated for each treatment group (group "A" and "B"). Adding a dropout rate of approx. 25% results in a total number of patients for both treatment groups of N=38.
Study Visits:
Visit 0 (-1 week) - Screening Visit 1 ( Week 0) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 2 (Week 1, day 7 +/- 1 day) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 3 (Week 2, day14 +/- 1 day) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 4 (Week 4, day 28 +/- 2 days) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 5 (Week 8, day 56 +/- 2 days) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 6 (Week 12, day 84 +/- 2 days) - End of study following 12 weeks of treatment or at healing whichever is soonest
The number of additional visits will be recorded in the Case Report Forms.
Treatment efficacy assessment:
Clinical signs and symptoms will be compared between the two randomised groups with microbiological analysis and, computer planimetry assessments of ulcer size, using Visitrak™ (Smith \& Nephew), and digital photography at entry to the study, at each planned study visit and at healing or 12 weeks, whichever is soonest.
Tolerance assessment:
The tolerability of study treatment will be evaluation based on the intensity and the course of adverse events (undesired concomitant effects, both subjectively perceived symptoms and objectively detected signs of disease). Tolerance assessments will take place from visit 2 onwards
Assessment methods:
1. Assessment of clinical signs and symptoms, in particular related to development of infection:
* reduction of slough and necrotic tissue
* control of exudate
* presence of granulation tissue
* reduction of inflammatory signs (surrounding skin)
* pain
2. Ulcer computerised planimetry using Visitrak™
3. Microbiological analysis for bioburden (the bioburden within an ulcer relates to a microbiological qualitative and quantitative assessment of organisms present) assessed by wound swab or biopsy
4. Serial photography with blinded assessment of progress using linear analogue scale
Sponsor: B. BRAUN Medical AG
Trade name: Prontosan® Wound Irrigation Solution Prontosan® Wound Gel
Active substance: Polihexanide (0.1%) Betaine (0.1%)
Study Duration (per patient):
13 weeks, including the 1 week run in period
Primary Objective:
To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of Prontosan® Wound Irrigation Solution and Prontosan® Wound Gel in the reduction of wound size of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers compared to control saline irrigation solution and inactive gel.
Secondary Objectives:
To assess the change in bio-burden (assessment of organisms present) and to determine local tolerance as well as reduction in pain and to monitor exudate control.
Methodology:
A pilot randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial at a single centre
Planned number of patients:
A sample size of N= 15 evaluable patients was estimated for each treatment group (group "A" and "B"). Adding a dropout rate of approx. 25% results in a total number of patients for both treatment groups of N=38.
Study Visits:
Visit 0 (-1 week) - Screening Visit 1 ( Week 0) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 2 (Week 1, day 7 +/- 1 day) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 3 (Week 2, day14 +/- 1 day) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 4 (Week 4, day 28 +/- 2 days) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 5 (Week 8, day 56 +/- 2 days) - Treatment and assessment visit Visit 6 (Week 12, day 84 +/- 2 days) - End of study following 12 weeks of treatment or at healing whichever is soonest
The number of additional visits will be recorded in the Case Report Forms.
Treatment efficacy assessment:
Clinical signs and symptoms will be compared between the two randomised groups with microbiological analysis and, computer planimetry assessments of ulcer size, using Visitrak™ (Smith \& Nephew), and digital photography at entry to the study, at each planned study visit and at healing or 12 weeks, whichever is soonest.
Tolerance assessment:
The tolerability of study treatment will be evaluation based on the intensity and the course of adverse events (undesired concomitant effects, both subjectively perceived symptoms and objectively detected signs of disease). Tolerance assessments will take place from visit 2 onwards
Assessment methods:
1. Assessment of clinical signs and symptoms, in particular related to development of infection:
* reduction of slough and necrotic tissue
* control of exudate
* presence of granulation tissue
* reduction of inflammatory signs (surrounding skin)
* pain
2. Ulcer computerised planimetry using Visitrak™
3. Microbiological analysis for bioburden (the bioburden within an ulcer relates to a microbiological qualitative and quantitative assessment of organisms present) assessed by wound swab or biopsy
4. Serial photography with blinded assessment of progress using linear analogue scale
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: