Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01037413

Safety and Efficacy Study of EXC 001 to Improve the Appearance of Scars From Prior Breast Surgery

This study will compare how well EXC 001 works to improve the appearance of scars in subjects undergoing breast scar revision surgery. The study will also evaluate the safety of EXC 001 in healthy adult subjects.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–55 year

Sex eligibility

Female

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 2

Primary location

Scripps medical, La Jolla, California, United States

Loading trial locations.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Subjects must have previously had breast surgery resulting in unacceptable scars
  • Subject has chosen to have the breast scars revised
  • Subjects must not be pregnant or lactating

Exclusion criteria

  • Currently pregnant or pregnant during the 6 months prior to inclusion in the study, or lactating
  • Participation in another clinical trial within 30 days prior to the start of the study
  • Any other condition or prior therapy, which, in the opinion of the PI, would make the subject unsuitable for this study

Treatment and study plan

EXC 001

Drug

Multiple intradermal injections of EXC 001 and placebo

Placebo

Drug

Multiple intradermal injections of EXC 001 and placebo

Primary outcomes

  1. Expert Panel Scar Assessment Score at Week 12

    Time frame: Part B: Week 12

    Scar assessment by an expert panel was done on blinded photographs using 100 millimeter (mm) visual analog scale (VAS) where a score of 0 mm = best possible scar and a score of 100 mm = worst possible scar, where higher scores indicate worse condition.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Expert Panel Scar Assessment Score at Week 8 and 24

    Time frame: Part B: Week 8 and 24

    Scar assessment by an expert panel was done on blinded photographs using 100 mm VAS where a score of 0 mm = best possible scar and a score of 100 mm = worst possible scar, where higher scores indicate worse condition.

  2. Physician Observer Scar Assessment Score at Week 12 and 24

    Time frame: Part B: Week 12 and 24

    Physician observer assessment of scar was done using a valid published 10-point rating scale. Physician rated vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, surface area and overall opinion for a scar on a score of 1= normal skin to 10= worst scar imaginable, where higher scores indicate worse condition. Composite score was the sum of all the scores except the overall opinion score and range from 6 (best score) to 60 (worst score), where higher scores indicate worse condition.

  3. Participant Observer Scar Assessment Score at Week 12 and 24

    Time frame: Part B: Week 12 and 24

    Participants rated pain, itching, color, stiffness, thickness, irregularity, and overall opinion of scar on 10-point scale. For pain and itching associated with scar: range =1 (no, not at all) to 10 (yes, worst imaginable) and for other parameters associated with scar compared to normal skin: range =1 (no, same as normal skin) to 10 (yes, very different), where higher scores indicate worse condition. Composite score = sum of all scores except overall opinion, range 6 (best) to 60 (worst), where higher scores indicate worse condition. Scar appearance composite score = sum of all scores except overall opinion, pain and itching, range 4 (best) to 40 (worst), where higher scores indicate worse condition.

  4. Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

    Time frame: Part A: Day 1; Part B, Active Dosing: Week 2 up to Week 13; Part B, Post Dosing: Week 13 to end of the study (Week 24)

    An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. AEs included SAEs and all non-SAEs that occurred during the study.

  5. Number of Participants With Abnormal Physical Examination Findings

    Time frame: Screening (up to Day 21 prior to Day 1 of Part A), Part B: Day 1, Week 12

    Physical examination included the assessment of skin; head, ears, eyes, nose, and throat; respiratory; cardiovascular; abdomen; musculoskeletal; neurological; gastrointestinal; genitourinary; endocrine and lymph nodes. Abnormal physical examination findings was based on investigator's discretion.

  6. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Findings in Electrocardiogram (ECG)

    Time frame: Screening (up to Day 21 prior to Day 1 of Part A), Part B: Week 12

    Number of participants with clinically significant abnormality in ECG were reported. Clinical significance was based on investigator's discretion.

  7. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Findings in Laboratory Examinations

    Time frame: Screening (up to Day 21 prior to Day 1 of Part A), Part B: Day 1 up to Week 12

    Laboratory analysis included hematology, biochemistry and urinalysis. Hematology range: basophils (bas) 0-0.2, eosinophils (eos) 0-0.4, leukocytes (leu) 4-10.5, lymphocytes (lym) 0.7-4.5, neutrophils (neu) 1.8-7.8, platelet 140-415, monocytes (mon) 0.1-1 in 10^9 per liter; bas/leu 0-3, eos/leu 0-7, lym/leu 14-46, mon/leu 4-13, neu/leu and neu/leu 40-74 in percentage, erythrocytes 3.8-5.1 10^12/L, hematocrit 0.34-0.44 L/L, hemoglobin 115-150 gram per liter (g/L). Biochemistry range: creatine kinase 24-173, alkaline phosphatase 25-150, alanine aminotransferase (AT) and aspartate AT 0-40 in International units per liter; creatinine 50-88, urate 89-399, bilirubin 2-21 in micromole per liter, glucose 3.6-5.5, potassium 3.5-5.5, sodium 135-148, blood urea nitrogen 1.8-9.3 in millimole/L, albumin 35-55 g/L. Urinalysis parameters: pH (5-7.5), specific gravity (1.005-1.03). Participants with clinically significant findings were reported.

  8. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Findings in Vital Signs

    Time frame: Screening (up to Day 21 prior to Day 1 of Part A), Part B: Day 1 up to Week 12

    Following vital sign parameters were assessed: diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, respiration rate, pulse rate, and temperature. Clinical significance was based on investigator's discretion.

  9. Number of Participants With Positive Skin Sensitivity Reaction

    Time frame: Part A: Day 1, Part B: Week 2 up to Week 24

    Participants were instructed to inform the investigator in case of any itching, redness, pain or any other symptom that appears to be a rash at the injection sites. Erythematous, raised (indurated) and edematous reactions were considered as positive skin sensitivity reactions.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Pfizer

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

A PHASE 2, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, WITHIN-SUBJECT CONTROLLED STUDY TO EVALUATE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF EXC 001 FOR THE AMELIORATION OF SCARRING FOLLOWING REVISION OF SCARS RESULTING FROM PRIOR BREAST SURGERY IN ADULT FEMALE SUBJECTS

Important dates

Study start
2009
Primary completion
2010
Study completion
2010
First posted
Dec 23, 2009
Registry last updated
Aug 2, 2021

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.