A Clinical Study to Compare MAR-CUTIS With Dermabond Advanced

Wounds and Injuries Clinical Trial

Official title:

A Randomized, Open-label, Multi-center, Controlled Clinical Study to Compare MAR-CUTIS With Dermabond Advanced in Closure of Surgical Incisions and Lacerations up to 15 Centimeters

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Terminated

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03688880
• Other study ID #: KF7021-04
• Secondary ID: 1012937
• Status: Terminated
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: October 30, 2018
• Est. completion date: September 4, 2019

Study information

• Verified date: July 2020
• Source: Grünenthal GmbH
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, comparator-controlled clinical study to compare MAR-CUTIS with Dermabond Advanced in closure of surgical incisions and lacerations less than or equal to (<=)15 centimeter (cm). Eligible participants were randomized 2:1 to MAR-CUTIS or Dermabond Advanced.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Terminated
• Enrollment: 107
• Est. completion date: September 4, 2019
• Est. primary completion date: July 17, 2019
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 2 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

For participants with surgical incisions:

1. Participants underwent closure of surgical incision 6 to 15 centimeters (cms) following laparotomy, abdominal hysterectomy, or laparoscopic intervention.

For participants with lacerations:

2. Participants requiring closure of a laceration on face (avoiding the immediate area around the eye) or extremities. In participants with multiple lacerations, one was selected as the target wound (i.e., greatest length and meets the study entry criteria).

For all participants:

3. Participant had given written informed consent/assent to participate.

4. Male and female participants at least 2 years of age and body weight 10 kilogram (kg) or greater.

5. Participants willing and capable of following instructions for wound care provided by the investigator and agreeing to return for all treatment control visits specified in this clinical study.

Exclusion Criteria:

For participants with lacerations:

1. Wounds on mucosal surfaces or across mucocutaneous junctions (e.g., oral cavity, lips, eyes).

2. Wounds which might be regularly exposed to body fluids or with dense natural hair (e.g., scalp); wounds on ears.

3. Wounds on palms and feet.

4. Animal or human bites.

5. Lacerations that were heavily contaminated.

6. Punctured or crushed wounds.

7. Participants with lacerations having wound treatment more than 6 hours after the trauma.

For all participants:

8. Participants requiring suturing with sutures greater than 5 mm thickness.

9. Participants with documented skin disease or skin conditions (e.g., excessive hair at the site of surgery, scar tissue, wound, tattoo, coloration, or pre-existing open sores at the site of surgery that would interfere with the application of Investigational Medical Device or the skin assessment, as judged by the investigator).

10. Participant with any factors that might had an adverse effect on wound healing (e.g., previous history of keloid formation or hypertrophy [as well in the family]), history of immunosuppression, chronic systemic infection, or poor general health.

11. Participants with known blood clotting disorders.

12. Participants receiving steroids, immunosuppressants, chemotherapy, or anticoagulants.

13. Participants having known or suspected allergy or sensitivity to polyurethane, cyanoacrylates, formaldehyde, tapes or adhesives, or benzalkonium chloride.

14. Participant participating in any current clinical study with a non-CE ("Conformitee Europeene") marked device or investigational product.

15. Participant who was pregnant or breastfeeding.

16. Participant with history of a significant dermatologic disease or condition, such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, lichen ruber planus, vitiligo or conditions known to alter the skin appearance or physiologic response (e.g., decompensated diabetes mellitus, porphyria) that involves the investigative site.

Removal of Participants From Therapy or Assessments:

Only participants that were withdrawn from the study due to product failure at the time of application were replaced.

Participants might stop the study for any of the following reasons:

1. Participant request.

2. Use of non-permitted concurrent therapy.

3. Lost to follow-up (considered lost to follow-up only before Day 10).

4. Occurrence of adverse events not compatible with the continuation of participant participation in the study, in the investigator's opinion, or unacceptable to the participant to continue.

• Investigator request.

• Inter-current illness.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Lacerations
• Surgical Incision
• Surgical Wound
• Wounds and Injuries

Intervention

Device:
• MAR-CUTIS
MAR-CUTIS was applied in 1 to 2 mm thick layer, ensuring that at least 1 cm of the glue was applied over the length of the wound on each side. The amount of the glue applied was calculated such that one 5-mL syringe covers approximately 8 cm of wound length (giving a total of 10 cm per syringe). For wounds >8 cm, 2 syringes were required.
• Dermabond Advanced
Dermabond Advanced was applied in 1 continuous layer onto a dry wound through painting motions, taking care not to apply adhesive between the wound edges.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
France	004 - CHU Amiens-Picardie	Amiens
France	005 - Hôpital Privé Paul d'Egine	Champigny-sur-Marne
Germany	010 - Charité Berlin	Berlin
Germany	006 - Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg	Heidelberg
Germany	009 - Klinikum Magdeburg	Magdeburg
Spain	001 - Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron	Barcelona
Spain	022 - Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Maranon	Madrid
Spain	003 - University Hospital Virgen del Rocío	Seville
United Kingdom	019 - Barnsley Hospital	Barnsley
United Kingdom	017 - Birmingham Children's Hospital	Birmingham
United Kingdom	018 - Bristol Royal Hospital for Children	Bristol
United Kingdom	021 - University Hospital of Wales	Cardiff
United Kingdom	013 - The Princess Alexandra Hospital	Harlow
United Kingdom	011 - Leeds Teaching Hospitals	Leeds
United Kingdom	016 - St George's Hospital	London
United Kingdom	014 - Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital	Margate
United Kingdom	020 - Royal Gwent Hospital	Newport
United Kingdom	012 - Peterborough City Hospital	Peterborough
United Kingdom	015 - Musgrove Park Hospital	Taunton

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Grünenthal GmbH	Syneos Health

Countries where clinical trial is conducted

France,  Germany,  Spain,  United Kingdom, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Number of Participants With Total Dehiscence of Target Wound at Day 10	Wound dehiscence involved the breaking open of the surgical incision along the suture. Number of participants with dehiscence (reported as "yes") and number of participants showing no dehiscence (reported as "No").	At Day 10
Primary	Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)	A TEAE was defined as any adverse event (AE) that occured during the on-treatment-period (i.e. after the start of the application of the Investigational Medical Device (IMD) (Day 0) until the end-of-treatment visit [Month 3]).This included any events related to the procedures, the IMD, or the comparator. An SAE was any untoward medical occurrence or effect that: led to death, or led to serious deterioration in the health of the participant, that either resulted in: life-threatening illness or injury, or a permanent impairment of a body structure or a body function, or in-patient or prolonged hospitalization, or medical or surgical intervention to prevent life-threatening illness or injury or permanent, or impairment to a body structure or a body function. Or, led to fetal distress, fetal death, or a congenital abnormality or birth defect.	From Baseline (Day 0) up to Month 3
Secondary	Number of Participants With Total Dehiscence of Target Wound at Month 1	Wound dehiscence involved the breaking open of the surgical incision along the suture.	At Month 1
Secondary	Number of Participant's Reporting Satisfaction With the Device Using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)	The POSAS was a questionnaire that was developed to assess scar quality. It consisted of 2 separate 6-item scales (Patient Scale and Observer Scale), both of which were scored on a 10-point rating scale. In addition, each scale has an overall "opinion" with 1 being no pain, no itching, or normal skin and 10 being worst scar imaginable with pain and itching, where lower scores indicated better outcome.	At Month 1 and Month 3
Secondary	Percentage of Participants With Wound Infections	The wound infection incidence was assessed at the scheduled visits diagnosed according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for surgical site infection. Wound infection was assessed and the following symptoms were evaluated if infection was present: Presence of erythema; Presence of edema; Presence of pain at rest; Presence of elevated temperature; Percentage of participants with wound infections around target wound are reported.	At Day 10, and Month 1
Secondary	Investigator's Satisfaction With the Device Using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)	The POSAS was a questionnaire that was developed to assess scar quality. Investigator were asked to rate the severity of participant's scar compared to normal skin. The overall "opinion" ranged from 1= no pain, no itching, or normal skin to 10 = worst scar imaginable with pain and itching, where lower scores indicated better outcome.	At Month 1 and Month 3
Secondary	Investigator's Satisfaction With the Device Using Modified Hollander Cosmesis Scale	The investigator's satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome was assessed using the Modified Hollander Cosmesis Scale (mHCS). The mHCS consisted of 6 wound characteristics: Step-off borders, Contour irregularities, Target wound margin separation, Edge inversion, Excessive inflammation, Overall appearance. It was evaluated as "poor" or "good". Each of the characteristics was graded on a 0 (no/good) or 1 (yes/poor) point scale, where lower score indicated better outcome. Number of participants with different wound characteristics (poor and good) and participants with missing response are also reported.	At Day 10 and Month 1
Secondary	Number of Participant Reporting Satisfaction With the Device Using a Product-Related Questionnaire	The questionnaire consisted of 5 yes/no questions that evaluated the participant's experience with the adhesive, 1 question that rated the effect of the closed wound on several daily activities (i.e., showering, getting dressed), 1 question that evaluated satisfaction with the wound closure, and visual analog scales which rate pain and scarring.	At Day 10 and Month 1
Secondary	Number of Participants Reporting Satisfaction With the Device Evaluated by Investigator Using a Product-Related Questionnaire	The questionnaire consisted of 5 yes/no questions that assess the investigator's experience applying the adhesive (i.e., easy to use, fast, without complications), a visual analog scale that rates usability of the product from 1 (poor = very difficult to use) to 100 (excellent = very easy to use), and 1 question that evaluates satisfaction with the adhesive.	At Day 0 and Month 1
Secondary	Investigator's Satisfaction With Ease of Use With the Device Using a Product-Related Questionnaire	The questionnaire consisted of 8 yes/no questions and 1 opinion question that evaluated the investigator's experience with use of the adhesive (i.e., instructions easy to understand, preparation of the syringe being easy and fast, glue hardening time).	At Month 1