Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| RH02332 | Other Identifier | GSK |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The objective of this randomised, examiner and subject blinded study is to evaluate and compare cooling performance and overall consumer liking of the prototype formulation with the currently marketed wound spray and negative control in subjects with experimental wounds. For each subject, three superficial wounds will be induced on two volar forearms, by sequential tape strippings until a glistening layer is visualized. After wounding, a randomised test product will be sprayed twice on test site, and the subject will be asked to complete a questionnaire evaluating product cooling performance and overall liking.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prototype disinfectant spray formulation | Experimental | 0.13% w/w Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC) and 1% Menthone Glycerin Acetal (MGA). After wounding, the product will be held approximately 10 cm above the wounding area, and sprayed twice towards the wound |
|
| Reference product | Active Comparator | 0.13% w/w BAC. After wounding, the product will be held approximately 10 cm above the wounding area, and sprayed twice towards the wound |
|
| Negative control | Placebo Comparator | 0.9% w/v sodium chloride solution. After wounding, the product will be held approximately 10 cm above the wounding area, and sprayed twice towards the wound |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prototype disinfectant spray formulation | Other | 0.13% w/w BAC and 1% MGA. After wounding, the product will be held approximately 10 cm above the wounding area, and sprayed twice towards the wound |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation Immediately Post Product Application | The cooling sensation was assessed immediately after the study product application on 100 millimeter (mm) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling). | Immediately after product application |
| Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation at 3 Min | The cooling sensation was assessed on VAS (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling) at 3 min post study product application. | At 3 min after product application |
| Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation at 5 Min | The cooling sensation was assessed on VAS (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling) at 5 min post study product application. | At 5 min after product application |
| Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation at 15 Min | The cooling sensation was assessed on VAS (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling) at 15 min post study product application. | At 15 min after product application |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Sensory Liking of Study Products | Overall sensory liking of the study products was assessed immediately, 3min, 5 min and 15 min after products application. The assessment was done on a 9 point categorical scale where 1= Dislike it extremely, 2= Dislike it very much, 3= Dislike it moderately, 4= Dislike it slightly, 5= Neither like it nor dislike it, 6= Like it slightly, 7= Like it moderately, 8= Like it very much, 9= Like it extremely. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| GSK Clinical Trials | GlaxoSmithKline | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangzhou Landproof Testing Technology Co., LTD | Guangzhou | Guangdong | 510635 | China |
A total of 50 participants with 1:1 ratio of male to female were screened and 50 were randomized.
Partcipants were recruited at one clinical study site in China.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Sequence 1 | Prototype disinfectant spray was sprayed twice on first wound, followed by Reference product twice sprayed on the second wound and subsequently Negative control was sprayed twice on the third wound. At least 30 min interval was allowed between prior and next product application. |
| FG001 | Sequence 2 | Prototype disinfectant spray was sprayed twice on first wound, followed by Negative control sprayed twice on the second wound and subsequently Reference product was sprayed twice on the third wound. At least 30 min interval was allowed between prior and next product application. |
| FG002 | Sequence 3 | Reference product was sprayed twice on the first wound, followed by Prototype Disinfectant Spray twice sprayed on the second wound and Negative control sprayed twice on the third wound. At least 30 min interval was allowed between prior and next product application. |
| FG003 | Sequence 4 | Reference product was sprayed twice on the first wound, followed by Negative control sprayed twice on the second wound and subsequently prototype disinfectant spray was twice sprayed on the third wound. At least 30 min interval was allowed between prior and next product application. |
| FG004 | Sequence 5 | Negative control was sprayed twice on the first wound, followed by Prototype Disinfectant Spray twice sprayed on the second wound and Reference product sprayed twice on the third wound. At least 30 min interval was allowed between prior and next product application. |
| FG005 | Sequence 6 | Negative control was sprayed twice on the first wound, followed by Reference product sprayed twice on the second wound and Prototype Disinfectant Spray twice sprayed on the third wound. At least 30 min interval was allowed between prior and next product application. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visit 1, Treatment Period 1 |
| |||||||||||||
| Visit 1, Treatment Period 2 |
| |||||||||||||
| Visit 1, Treatment Period 3 |
| |||||||||||||
| Follow-Up Visit 2 |
| |||||||||||||
| Follow-Up Visit 3 |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | All Randomized Participants | All randomized participants were evaluated for baseline characteristics |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation Immediately Post Product Application | The cooling sensation was assessed immediately after the study product application on 100 millimeter (mm) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling). | Efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population defined as all randomized participants who received the product at least once and provided at least one post product use assessment of efficacy. One participant had one efficacy assessment outside the required time window but was included in ITT population | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | Immediately after product application |
|
AEs were collected from the start of the investigational product, and until last visit (7 days following last administration of the investigational product).
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Prototype Disinfectant Spray Formulation | 0.13% w/w BAC and 1% MGA. After wounding, the product was held approximately 10 cm above the wounded area, and sprayed twice towards the wound. |
Not provided
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Itch in all three wounds(Wound Complication) | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Systematic Assessment |
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSK Response Center | GlaxoSmithKline | 866-435-7343 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Reference product | Other | 0.13% w/w BAC. After wounding, the product will be held approximately 10 cm above the wounding area, and sprayed twice towards the wound |
|
| Negative control | Other | 0.9% w/v sodium chloride solution. After wounding, the product will be held approximately 10 cm above the wounding area, and sprayed twice towards the wound |
|
| Immediatey, 3 min, 5 min and 15 min after product application |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| Years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| OG001 | Reference Product | 0.13% w/w BAC. After wounding, the product was held approximately 10 cm above the wounded area, and sprayed twice towards the wound. |
| OG002 | Negative Control | 0.9% w/v Sodium Chloride solution. After wounding, the product was held approximately 10 cm above the wounded area, and sprayed twice towards the wound. |
|
|
|
| Primary | Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation at 3 Min | The cooling sensation was assessed on VAS (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling) at 3 min post study product application. | Efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population defined as all randomized participants who received the product at least once and provided at least one post product use assessment of efficacy. One participant had one efficacy assessment outside the required time window but was included in ITT population | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | At 3 min after product application |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation at 5 Min | The cooling sensation was assessed on VAS (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling) at 5 min post study product application. | Efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population defined as all randomized participants who received the product at least once and provided at least one post product use assessment of efficacy. One participant had one efficacy assessment outside the required time window but was included in ITT population | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | At 5 min after product application |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Participant-perceived Cooling Sensation at 15 Min | The cooling sensation was assessed on VAS (0-100 mm, where 0= no cooling and 100= extreme cooling) at 15 min post study product application. | Efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population defined as all randomized participants who received the product at least once and provided at least one post product use assessment of efficacy. One participant had one efficacy assessment outside the required time window but was included in ITT population | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | At 15 min after product application |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Overall Sensory Liking of Study Products | Overall sensory liking of the study products was assessed immediately, 3min, 5 min and 15 min after products application. The assessment was done on a 9 point categorical scale where 1= Dislike it extremely, 2= Dislike it very much, 3= Dislike it moderately, 4= Dislike it slightly, 5= Neither like it nor dislike it, 6= Like it slightly, 7= Like it moderately, 8= Like it very much, 9= Like it extremely. | Efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population defined as all randomized participants who received the product at least once and provided at least one post product use assessment of efficacy. One participant had one efficacy assessment outside the required time window but was included in ITT population | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | Immediatey, 3 min, 5 min and 15 min after product application |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 50 |
| 1 |
| 50 |
| EG001 | Reference Product | 0.13% w/w BAC. After wounding, the product was held approximately 10 cm above the wounded area, and sprayed twice towards the wound. | 0 | 50 | 1 | 50 |
| EG002 | Negative Control | 0.9% w/v Sodium Chloride solution. After wounding, the product was held approximately 10 cm above the wounded area, and sprayed twice towards the wound. | 0 | 50 | 1 | 50 |
GSK agreements may vary with individual investigators, but will not prohibit any investigator from publishing. GSK supports the publication of results from all centers of a multi-center trial but requests that reports based on single-site data not precede the primary publication of the entire clinical trial.
| The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null. | ANOVA | Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect. | 0.6323 | Mean Difference (Net) | 1.69 | 2-Sided | 95 | -5.31 | 8.69 | Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product. | No | Superiority or Other |
| The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null. | ANOVA | Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect. | 0.0069 | Mean Difference (Net) | 9.73 | 2-Sided | 95 | 2.74 | 16.73 | Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation. | No | Superiority or Other |
| The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null. | ANOVA | Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect. | 0.4645 | Mean Difference (Net) | -2.18 | 2-Sided | 95 | -8.09 | 3.72 | Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product. | No | Superiority or Other |
| The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null. | ANOVA | Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect. | <0.0001 | Mean Difference (Net) | 14.32 | 2-Sided | 95 | 8.41 | 20.22 | Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation. | No | Superiority or Other |
| The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null. | ANOVA | Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect. | 0.5030 | Mean Difference (Net) | 2.02 | 2-Sided | 95 | -3.95 | 8.00 | Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product. | No | Superiority or Other |
| The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null. | ANOVA | Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect. | 0.1482 | Mean Difference (Net) | 4.39 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.59 | 10.36 | Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation. | No | Superiority or Other |