Dataset Information

Antiseptic efficacy of an innovative perioperative surgical skin preparation: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:An innovative approach to perioperative antiseptic skin preparation is warranted because of potential adverse skin irritation, rare risk of serious allergic reaction, and perceived diminished clinical efficacy of current perioperative antiseptic agents. The results of a confirmatory US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) phase 3 efficacy analysis of a recently approved innovative perioperative surgical skin antiseptic agent are discussed. METHODS:The microbial skin flora on abdominal and groin sites in healthy volunteers were microbiologically sampled following randomization to either ZuraGard, a 2% chlorhexidine/70% isopropyl alcohol preparation (Chloraprep), or a control vehicle (alcohol-free ZuraGard). Mean log10 reduction of colony-forming units (CFU) was assessed at 30 seconds, 10 minutes, and 6 hours. RESULTS:For combined groin sites (1,721 paired observations) at all time points, the mean log10 CFU reductions were significantly greater in the ZuraGard group than in the Chloraprep group (P < .02). Mean log10 CFU reductions across combined abdominal and groin sites at all time points (3,277 paired observations) were significantly greater in the ZuraGard group than in the Chloraprep group (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS:A confirmatory FDA phase 3 efficacy analysis of skin antisepsis in human volunteers documented that ZuraGard was efficacious in significantly reducing the microbial burden on abdominal and groin test sites, exceeding that of Chloraprep. No significant adverse reactions were observed following the application of ZuraGard. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02831998 and NCT02831816.

SUBMITTER: Edmiston CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7282856 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antiseptic efficacy of an innovative perioperative surgical skin preparation: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 analysis.

Edmiston Charles E CE Lavin Philip P Spencer Maureen M Borlaug Gwen G Seabrook Gary R GR Leaper David D

Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20200601 6

<h4>Background</h4>An innovative approach to perioperative antiseptic skin preparation is warranted because of potential adverse skin irritation, rare risk of serious allergic reaction, and perceived diminished clinical efficacy of current perioperative antiseptic agents. The results of a confirmatory US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) phase 3 efficacy analysis of a recently approved innovative perioperative surgical skin antiseptic agent are discussed.<h4>Methods</h4>The microbial skin flora ...[more]

PMID: 32131912

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe application of antiseptic skin agents prior to incision minimizes the rate of surgical site infection. Despite their ubiquity, the optimal skin preparation agent remains uncertain. A retrospective economic analysis was conducted to complement the results from the NEWSkin Prep trial which prospectively compared three preparation agents.MethodsA cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare service perspective to compare chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine, against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. Resource use estimates accounted for hospital admissions, readmissions associated with surgical site infection, outpatient and general practitioner attendances, visits from community nurses and therapeutic consumables. The measure of effectiveness comprised the net difference in number of patients with surgical site infections per 1000 patients. Costs were compared using a two-sample Welch's t-test. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsThe null hypothesis that the mean costs for the trial arms were significantly different was not rejected (Welch's t-test P value: 0.771 for chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol; and 0.955 for aqueous povidone-iodine against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol). Based on bootstrap averages, the chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol intervention generated 8.0 fewer surgical site infections per 1000 patients and net cost savings of €151,698 (Euros) per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine produced a net cost saving of €37,494 per 1000 patients but generated an additional 11.6 surgical site infections per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. The comparison of chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the inclusion of cost outliers, while the comparison of aqueous povidone-iodine to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the estimated cost per surgical site infection.ConclusionBased on the outcomes from the NEWSkin Prep study, this economic analysis found no definitive evidence in favour of any one of the study comparators. Future model-based economic analyses of alternative skin preparations should critically address the quality of evidence and integrate the results from the NEWSkin Prep study.

Dataset Information

Antiseptic efficacy of an innovative perioperative surgical skin preparation: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 analysis.

Publications

Antiseptic efficacy of an innovative perioperative surgical skin preparation: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets