Dataset Information

A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm^®, an Emollient Cream.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Emollients provide an occlusive barrier for dry and atopic skin, retain moisture, protect it from irritants, and form the basis of eczema treatment.

Methods and analysis

A prospective interventional single arm study to evaluate the performance and safety of Epaderm^® Cream, an emollient and cleanser containing 25% (w/w) paraffin and 5% (w/w) glycerine (thereafter, an emollient cream), in patients with dry skin conditions. The primary outcome measure was participant evaluation of skin moisturisation after treatment with an emollient cream for up to 4 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included: evaluation of skin softness using a questionnaire and of pruritus on a visual analogue scale (VAS); clinician assessment of xerosis using Overall Dry Skin (ODS) score and measurement of skin hydration using a non-invasive device (MoistureMeterEpiD, Delfin Technologies) at each visit. Sign test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to analyse changes from baseline.

Results

A total of 114 participants completed the study. 84.2% (80 out of 95) of participants or parents strongly agreed or agreed that the cream improved skin moisturisation at 4 weeks of treatment at the target area (p<0.0001). 86.3% of participants agreed that skin softness improved after 4 weeks (p <0.0001). ODS score improved from 2.1 (standard deviation (SD) 1.0) to 0.7 (SD 0.8) at 4 weeks. Skin hydration at the target area improved from 31.5 (SD 9.3) to 40.5 (SD 8.3) (p<0.001) at 4 weeks. Mean skin itchiness reduced from 38.0 (SD 25.4) to 17.7 (SD 19.8) at 4 weeks (p<0.0001). Ten (8.3%) adverse device events (ADEs) were reported.

Conclusion

The emollient cream was well tolerated and demonstrated significant improvements in patient-reported skin moisturisation and softness as well as in clinical measurement of xerosis and skin hydration across all age groups including infants. The emollient cream can be recommended for dry skin conditions including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

SUBMITTER: August S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8292949 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (SLT) with the SLT mode of the VISULAS® green laser in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).MethodsThis prospective, interventional multicenter clinical investigation included patients with POAG who either needed a treatment escalation because the individual intraocular pressure (IOP) target was not met or treatment initiation and had an IOP ≥ 17 mmHg at baseline in the study eye. The study was conducted in five research centers across Germany. Approximately 100 laser applications were delivered to 360° of the trabecular meshwork. Glaucoma medications were not modified during the 3-month follow-up to allow evaluation of the sole effect of VISULAS® green with SLT. Efficacy outcomes were postoperatively absolute and relative IOP changes at 1 and 3 months. Safety outcomes analyzed the rate of intra- and postoperative adverse events.ResultsThirty-four eyes of 34 POAG patients were included. The overall mean number of preoperative glaucoma medications was 2.2 ± 1.4 in 29 treated eyes, 5 eyes were treatment naïve. Mean baseline IOP (mmHg) was 21.0 ± 2.69 and was reduced by - 3.53 ± 3.34 [95% CI - 4.61; - 2.45] and - 3.59 ± 3.41 [95% CI - 4.64; - 2.53] at the 1- and 3-month follow-up, respectively (p < 0.0001), with 48.5% of cases achieving a ≥ 20% IOP reduction at 3 months [95% CI = 30.8%; 66.5%]. The mean relative IOP reduction was - 16.4% and - 16.3% at 1 and 3 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Potentially device- or procedure-related adverse events were mild to moderate and included 3 postoperative IOP-spikes and 6 reports regarding eye pain and discomfort. All were resolved without sequelae.ConclusionsSLT performed with the VISULAS® green laser achieved clinically significant additional IOP reductions in medically treated as well as in treatment naïve eyes with POAG and there were no relevant safety issues. The results are comparable to other reported SLT studies.

Project description:BackgroundTiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat® (TIOSPIR®) compared the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® and tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A prespecified spirometry substudy compared the lung function efficacy between treatment groups.MethodsTIOSPIR® was a large-scale, long-term (2.3-year), event-driven, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of 17,135 patients with COPD. In the spirometry substudy, trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured at baseline and every 24 weeks for the duration of the trial.ResultsThe substudy included 1370 patients who received once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (n = 461), 2.5 μg (n = 464), or tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg (n = 445). Adjusted mean trough FEV1 (average 24-120 weeks) was 1.285, 1.258, and 1.295 L in the Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, and HandiHaler® 18 μg groups (difference versus HandiHaler® [95 % CI]: -10 [-38, 18] mL for Respimat® 5 μg and, -37 [-65, -9] mL for Respimat® 2.5 μg); achieving noninferiority to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg for tiotropium Respimat® 5 but not for 2.5 μg (prespecified analysis). Adjusted mean trough FVC was 2.590, 2.544, and 2.593 L in the Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, and HandiHaler® 18 μg groups. The rates of FEV1 decline over 24 to 120 weeks were similar for the three treatment arms (26, 40, and 34 mL/year for the tiotropium Respimat® 5-μg, 2.5-μg, and HandiHaler® 18-μg groups). The rate of FEV1 decline in GOLD I + II patients was greater than in GOLD III + IV patients (46 vs. 23 mL/year); as well as in current versus ex-smokers, in patients receiving combination therapies at baseline versus not, and in those experiencing an exacerbation during the study versus not.ConclusionsThe TIOSPIR® spirometry substudy showed that tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg was noninferior to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg for trough FEV1, but Respimat® 2.5 μg was not. Tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg provides similar bronchodilator efficacy to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg with comparable rates of FEV1 decline. The rate of FEV1 decline varied based on disease severity, with a steeper rate of decline observed in patients with moderate airway obstruction.Trial registrationNCT01126437.

Project description:BackgroundAs per the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) requirements, the quality and efficacy of generic drugs must be consistent with those of the innovator drug. We aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence and safety of generic metformin hydrochloride sustained-release (MH-SR) tablets (Boke®) developed by Beijing Wanhui Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., China and the innovator product metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets (Glucophage®-XR) manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, NY, in healthy Chinese volunteers.Materials and methodsWe performed a bioequivalence and safety assessment of MH-SR (500 mg/tablet) and Glucophage®-XR (500 mg/tablet) tablets in a randomized, open-label, two-period, two-sequence crossover, single-dose oral study in 48 healthy Chinese adult participants under fasting conditions (Chinese Clinical Trial Registration No. CTR20171306). The washout period was seven days. Bioequivalence (80.00-125.00%) was assessed using adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) for each component.ResultsThe 90% CIs of the test/reference preparation for key pharmacokinetic parameters were 97.36-108.30% for AUC0→t, 97.26-108.09% for AUC0→∞ and 96.76-111.37% for Cmax. No severe adverse events (AEs) were observed. However, 38 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred, including metabolic or nutritional conditions (n = 8), infections (n = 2), gastrointestinal conditions (n = 10) and abnormal inspection (n = 18). No significant difference was observed between MH-SR (23 ADRs, 10 participants) and Glucophage®-XR (15 ADRs, 12 participants) (p = .500). Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CIs of the main pharmacokinetic parameters were within the equivalence interval (80.00-125.00%).ConclusionsMH-SR (500 mg/tablet) and Glucophage®-XR (500 mg/tablet) were found to be bioequivalent and safe under fasting conditions in healthy Chinese participants. Thus, the market demand for MH-SR tablets (500 mg/tablet) can be met using the generic alternative.KEY MESSAGESGeneric MH-SR tablets (500 mg, Beijing Wanhui Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Beijing, China) and innovator MH-SR tablets (Glucophage®-XR, 500 mg, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, NY, USA) were bioequivalent and safe in healthy Chinese volunteers under single-dose administration and fasting conditions.The main goal of this study is to support an increase in the supply of MH-SR tablets in China by proving the efficacy and safety of a generic alternative.Although no sugar was administered in the BE trial of the MH-SR tablets under fasting conditions, no hypoglycaemic event occurred. The method used in this study is expected to serve as a reference for BE studies of different MH-SR formulations.

Project description:IntroductionLiraglutide effectively controls blood glucose level and reduces body weight. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar liraglutide (Melitide®; CinnaGen, Tehran, Iran) to the reference liraglutide (Victoza®; Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsIn this phase 3 clinical noninferiority trial, adult patients with inadequately controlled T2DM and with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels of 7-10.5% on at least two oral glucose-lowering drugs with stable doses for at least 3 months were randomized to receive Melitide® (n = 150) or Victoza® (n = 150) 1.8 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was assessment of the noninferiority of Melitide® to Victoza® in terms of change in HbA1C level with a prespecified margin of 0.4%. The secondary outcomes were the assessment of additional efficacy parameters (including the proportion of patients achieving HbA1C levels of < 7%), the incidence of adverse events, and immunogenicity.ResultsOf the 300 participants enrolled in this study, 235 were included in the per-protocol analysis (112 in the Melitide® group and 123 in the Victoza® group). The mean (standard deviation) changes in HbA1C were - 1.76% (1.22) in the Melitide® group and - 1.59% (1.31) in the Victoza® group. The upper limit of the 95% one-sided confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between Melitide® and Victoza® in lowering HbA1C was lower than the predefined margin (mean difference - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.5 to 0.15). Similar findings were obtained with the intention-to-treat analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two study arms regarding the proportion of patients achieving HbA1C < 7% (p = 0.210), other efficacy parameters (p > 0.05), and reported adverse events (p = 0.916). Furthermore, none of the patients developed anti-liraglutide antibodies.ConclusionThe biosimilar liraglutide (Melitide®) was noninferior in efficacy and comparable in safety when compared with the reference liraglutide.Trial registrationNCT03421119.

Dataset Information

A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm^®, an Emollient Cream.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Results

Conclusion

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm®, an Emollient Cream.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Results

Conclusion

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm^®, an Emollient Cream.