A Clinical Study to Compare MAR-CUTIS With Dermabond Advanced

Not Applicable

Terminated

• Conditions: Surgical Incision; Lacerations; Wounds and Injuries
• Interventions: Device: MAR-CUTIS; Device: Dermabond Advanced

• Registration Number: NCT03688880
• Lead Sponsor: Grünenthal GmbH

Brief 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.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2018-09-26
• Study First Submitted QC: 2018-09-26
• Study First Posted: 2018-09-28
• Study Start: 2018-10-30
• Primary Completion: 2019-07-17
• Study Completion: 2019-09-04
• Status Verified: 2020-07
• Results First Submitted: 2020-07-12
• Results First Submitted QC: 2020-08-10
• Last Update Submitted: 2020-08-10
• Results First Posted: 2020-08-20
• Last Update Posted: 2020-08-20

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: TERMINATED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 107

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.

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
MAR-CUTIS	MAR-CUTIS	MAR-CUTIS (polyurethane-based skin adhesive) was applied on Day 0. MAR-CUTIS was applied in 1 to 2 millimeter (mm) thick layer ensuring that at least 1 cm of the glue is applied over the length of the wound on each side; the wound was held for approximately 30 seconds to allow for initial polymerization.
Dermabond Advanced	Dermabond Advanced	Dermabond Advanced (a topical skin adhesive) was applied on Day 0. Dermabond Advanced was applied in 1 continuous layer onto a dry wound through painting motions; the wound was held for 60 seconds to allow for complete polymerization.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Number of Participants With Total Dehiscence of Target Wound at Day 10	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").
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)	From Baseline (Day 0) up to Month 3	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.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Number of Participants With Total Dehiscence of Target Wound at Month 1	At Month 1	Wound dehiscence involved the breaking open of the surgical incision along the suture.
Number of Participant's Reporting Satisfaction With the Device Using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)	At Month 1 and Month 3	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.
Percentage of Participants With Wound Infections	At Day 10, and Month 1	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.
Investigator's Satisfaction With the Device Using Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)	At Month 1 and Month 3	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.
Investigator's Satisfaction With the Device Using Modified Hollander Cosmesis Scale	At Day 10 and Month 1	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.
Number of Participant Reporting Satisfaction With the Device Using a Product-Related Questionnaire	At Day 10 and Month 1	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.
Number of Participants Reporting Satisfaction With the Device Evaluated by Investigator Using a Product-Related Questionnaire	At Day 0 and Month 1	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.
Investigator's Satisfaction With Ease of Use With the Device Using a Product-Related Questionnaire	At Month 1	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).

Trial Locations

Locations (19)

010 - Charité Berlin; 🇩🇪 Berlin, Germany

022 - Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Maranon; 🇪🇸 Madrid, Spain

004 - CHU Amiens-Picardie; 🇫🇷 Amiens, France

009 - Klinikum Magdeburg; 🇩🇪 Magdeburg, Germany

005 - Hôpital Privé Paul d'Egine; 🇫🇷 Champigny-sur-Marne, France

006 - Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg; 🇩🇪 Heidelberg, Germany

018 - Bristol Royal Hospital for Children; 🇬🇧 Bristol, United Kingdom

017 - Birmingham Children's Hospital; 🇬🇧 Birmingham, United Kingdom

014 - Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital; 🇬🇧 Margate, United Kingdom

016 - St George's Hospital; 🇬🇧 London, United Kingdom

013 - The Princess Alexandra Hospital; 🇬🇧 Harlow, United Kingdom

003 - University Hospital Virgen del Rocío; 🇪🇸 Seville, Spain

001 - Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron; 🇪🇸 Barcelona, Spain

019 - Barnsley Hospital; 🇬🇧 Barnsley, United Kingdom

020 - Royal Gwent Hospital; 🇬🇧 Newport, United Kingdom

012 - Peterborough City Hospital; 🇬🇧 Peterborough, United Kingdom

021 - University Hospital of Wales; 🇬🇧 Cardiff, United Kingdom

011 - Leeds Teaching Hospitals; 🇬🇧 Leeds, United Kingdom

015 - Musgrove Park Hospital; 🇬🇧 Taunton, United Kingdom