Dermscan Poland
Gdansk, 80-288, Poland
NCT Number: NCT06309420
The present study was set-up to evaluate clinical efficacy of Pixie CO2 versus a comparator product (Wortie®) for the treatment of common and plantar warts.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me4 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Gdansk, 80-288, Poland
The use of cryotherapy has been long known to be effective against warts. The indications for Pixie CO2 are in line with the indications presented in the collected literature data, as well as with the indications of similar devices.
The benefits of the use of cryotherapy for warts is clearly evidenced. The treatment period is short (up to 3 treatments with a 14 day interval, compared to daily application of keratinolytics or fluorouracil, over a period of weeks). The cryotherapy application through a conic applicator is much more precise than with most chemical substances. Chemical substance application is leading to more side effects of the surrounding skin (typical for chemical treatment are pain, blistering, ulceration and contact dermatitis).
The Instructions for Use were developed in line with these data and are therefore covering all hazards known up to the date of this report.
Based on these data the product received its CE-mark approval.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Treatment of common and plantar warts by cryotherapy treatment.
Other names: X92001686
Treatment of common and plantar warts by cryotherapy treatment.
Time frame: 1 treatment (Day 0), 2 treatments (Day 15), 3 treatments (Day 30)
Comparison of the percentage of subjects with clinical wart remission after 1, 2 and 3 treatments with the tested product group versus comparator group, as observed during clinical evaluation of the treated wart by a dermatologist.
Time frame: 1 treatment (Day 0), 2 treatments (Day 15), 3 treatments (Day 30)
Comparison of the number of treatments needed for clinical remission of warts with both products
Time frame: Measurement treatment 1 (Day 0), Measurement treatment 2 (Day 15), Measurement treatment 3 (Day 30)
Surface area measurements of frostbite area to evaluate the efficacy of the freezing process
Time frame: Before treatment Day 0, after 1 treatment (Day 3 & Day 15), after 2 treatments (Day 30), after 3 treatments (Day 45)
Macrophotography of the wart
Time frame: Before treatment Day 0, after 1 treatment (Day 3 & Day 15), after 2 treatments (Day 30), after 3 treatments (Day 45)
Evaluation of roughness of the wart by blinded dermatologist. Classification scheme was used: 0=absence, 1=light, 2=moderate, 3=severe, and 4=very severe
Time frame: Before treatment Day 0, after 1 treatment (Day 3 & Day 15), after 2 treatments (Day 30), after 3 treatments (Day 45)
Evaluation of thickness of the wart by blinded dermatologist. Classification scheme was used: 0=absence, 1=light, 2=moderate, 3=severe, and 4=very severe
Time frame: Before treatment Day 0, after 1 treatment (Day 3 & Day 15), after 2 treatments (Day 30), after 3 treatments (Day 45)
Evaluation of presence of a small dark spot by blinded dermatologist. Classification scheme was used: 0=absence, 1=light, 2=moderate, 3=severe, and 4=very severe
Time frame: After 1 treatment (Day 3 & Day 15), after 2 treatments (Day 30), after 3 treatments (Day 45)
Evaluation of healing process of the wart by blinded dermatologist.
This is done by assessing:
Time frame: When wart is considered cured at Day 15, Day 30 or Day 45 or at the end of study on Day 45.
Evaluate the safety of the products by assessing local & general tolerance. Local tolerance will be assessed by using the following scale (0= Bad tolerance, 1= Moderade tolerance, 2= Good tolerance, 3=Very good tolerance.) Abnormal clinical signs and subjective signs reported by the subjects will be reported in the CRF.
The general tolerance is a collection of adverse events by the investigator.
Oystershell NV
Industry
Prospective, Single-blinded, Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of a Cryogenic Medical Device in Treatment of Common and Plantar Warts Versus a Comparator Product.
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT02231879
Agammaglobulinemia, Agranulocytosis
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07329907
DNA Virus Infections, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
Banhā, Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt
View Trial DetailsNCT05087849
Communicable Diseases, Condyloma
San Francisco, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05799157
Common Wart, DNA Virus Infections
Fort Smith, Arkansas, United States
View Trial Details