Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00742183

Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness, Efficacy, Safety and Tolerance of Mepilex® Ag Versus Silvadene®

The primary objective is to compare the incremental costs (direct and indirect) and benefits (healing outcomes, quality of life) of using foam silver dressing (Mepilex® Ag) to a Silver sulfadiazine 1% cream (Silvadene®) from the perspective of the health care provider.

The secondary objectives are to investigate the safety, the tolerance and the performance on burn status including pain.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Age range

5 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

LA County Hospital & USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States

Loading trial locations.

About this study

In- and/or out-patients at ten centers in the United States were included in this investigation. Subjects included were 5 years of age and older who suffered from partial thickness burns. Every patient was followed for 3 weeks.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients with a second degree burn covering 5% to 20% BSA. TBSA covered with burn is allowed to be up to 25%, allowing a maximum of 10% to be third degree burn (only the Second degree burn should be treated)
  • Burn of thermal origin
  • Both gender with an age ≥ 5 years at randomization
  • Signed informed consent
  • Subjects who are younger than the legal consenting age must have a legally authorized representative

Exclusion criteria

  • - Burns equal to or older than 36 hours
  • Burns of chemical and electrical origin
  • Clinically infected Burn (as judged by the investigator)
  • Treatment of the burn with an active agent before study entry, SSD is allowed up to 24 hours prior to randomization
  • Patients with necrotising leucocytic vasculitis or pyoderma gangrenosa.
  • Diagnosed underlying disease(s) (e.g. HIV/AIDS, cancer and severe anaemia) judged by the investigator to be a potential interference in the treatment.
  • Patients with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus
  • Patients treated with systemic glucocorticosteroids, except patients taking occasional doses or doses less than 10mg prednisolon/day or equivalent.
  • Use of immunosuppressive agents, radiation or chemotherapy within the past 30 days.
  • Known allergy/hypersensitivity to any of the components of the investigation products.
  • Patients with physical and/or mental conditions that are not expected to comply with the investigation.
  • Participation in other clinical investigation(s) within 1 month prior to start of the investigation
  • Pregnancy
  • Previously randomised to this investigation

Treatment and study plan

Mepilex

Device

Mepilex Ag - dressing changes every 5-7 days, more frequently if needed

Silvadene

Device

Silvadene - dressing changes every day, more frequently if needed

Primary outcomes

  1. Compare the Costs of Using the Interventions (Direct and Indirect)

    Time frame: August 2008-August 2009

    The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated as the difference in total costs in each group divided by the difference in rate of full re-epithelialization (taken from the survival curve) at 20 days in each group (Δcosts/ Δeffects). Total costs were calculated based on the costs of primary and secondary dressings, silver sulphadiazine cream and estimated application, labor, supplies and pain medications. These costs were estimated from a representative sample of each population, across study facilities, using activity-based costing methods.

    The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is interpreted as the price of additional health benefits. The ratio is supposed to be used by decision makers, in order for them to compare their willingness-to-pay for an additional health benefit with the pr

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Molnlycke Health Care AB

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

An Open, Parallel, Randomized, Comparative, Multi-centre Investigation in US Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness, Efficacy, Safety and Tolerance of Mepilex® Ag Versus Silvadene® in the Treatment of Partial Thickness Burns.

Important dates

Study start
2008
Primary completion
2009
Study completion
2009
First posted
Aug 27, 2008
Registry last updated
Dec 8, 2017

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.