- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT01966120
Safety and Efficacy Study for the Field-directed Treatment of Actinic Keratosis (AK) With Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III, Multi-center Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of BF-200 ALA (Ameluz®) Versus Placebo in the Field-directed Treatment of Mild to Moderate Actinic Keratosis With Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) When Using the BF-RhodoLED® Lamp
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Phase 3
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Bonn, Germany
- Dermatologisches Zentrum Bonn Friedensplatz
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Males or females between 18 and 85 years of age (inclusive)
- Presence of 4 to 8 clinically confirmed actinic keratosis (AK) target lesions of mild to moderate intensity within 1-2 fields
Exclusion Criteria:
- History of hypersensitivity to 5-ALA or any ingredient of BF-200 ALA
- Current treatment with immunosuppressive therapy
- Presence of other malignant or benign tumors of the skin within the treatment area (eg malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)) within the last 4 weeks
- Confirmed diagnosis of SCC for the representative lesion by screening biopsy
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: BF-200 ALA gel
Photodynamic therapy with BF-RhodoLED in combination with BF-200 ALA.
|
BF-200 ALA was applied over 1-2 fields of approximately 20 cm² in total, allowed to dry for approximately 10 minutes, and covered with occlusive tape material for 3 h.
Other Names:
After cleaning the lesions, the entire treatment field(s) were illuminated using the novel narrow spectrum BF-RhodoLED lamp, a red light illumination source (approximately 635 nm) developed by Biofrontera, until a total light dose of 37 J/cm² (per treated field) was achieved.
Other Names:
|
Placebo Comparator: Placebo to BF-200 ALA gel
Photodynamic therapy with BF-RhodoLED in combination with a nanoemulsion gel formulation similar to BF-200 ALA, but without the active ingredient 5-aminolevulinic acid.
|
After cleaning the lesions, the entire treatment field(s) were illuminated using the novel narrow spectrum BF-RhodoLED lamp, a red light illumination source (approximately 635 nm) developed by Biofrontera, until a total light dose of 37 J/cm² (per treated field) was achieved.
Other Names:
The reference product was a placebo (a nanoemulsion gel formulation similar to the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP), but without the active ingredient).
The placebo was packaged, assigned to each patient, and administered in the same way as the IMP.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Overall Patient Complete Response 12 Weeks After the Last Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
All efficacy variables were evaluated for the FAS. The primary efficacy variable was also analyzed for the PP population. All subgroup analyses were carried out for the FAS. Data for size and grade of AK lesions were analyzed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach, affecting the response rates evaluation. Due to the small amount of missing data in the study, which did not have any relevant impact on primary results, sensitivity analyses for missing data were not performed. The primary efficacy variable was the overall patient complete response 12 weeks after the last PDT. An overall complete responder was defined as a patient in whom all treated actinic keratosis (AK) lesions were cleared (Olsen score of 0) after the last PDT, i.e. after PDT 1 or after PDT 2 if re-treatment was performed. |
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Overall Patient Complete Response 12 Weeks After the Last PDT (PP)
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
All efficacy variables were evaluated for the FAS. The primary efficacy variable was also analyzed for the PP population. All subgroup analyses were carried out for the FAS. Data for size and grade of AK lesions were analyzed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach, affecting the response rates evaluation. Due to the small amount of missing data in the study, which did not have any relevant impact on primary results, sensitivity analyses for missing data were not performed. The primary efficacy variable was the overall patient complete response 12 weeks after the last PDT. An overall complete responder was defined as a patient in whom all treated AK lesions were cleared (Olsen score of 0) after the last PDT, i.e. after PDT 1 or after PDT 2 if re-treatment was performed. |
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Patient Histopathological Confirmed Response Rate
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
For the secondary confirmatory analysis, several superiority hypotheses were tested within a pre-defined hierarchic multiple testing procedure as described in the Statistical Analysis Protocoll (SAP). The key secondary efficacy variables were tested strictly in a pre-defined order to ensure the family-wise error rate (FWER) and the testing procedure had to be stopped once the first non-significant test was obtained. The results of the confirmatory analysis are presented in the order pre-defined by the confirmatory testing procedure. Assessments of the patient histopathological confirmed response (HCR) rates were based on the results from the biopsy taken 12 weeks after the last PDT from a representative AK lesion selected at screening. If the biopsy result for a patient revealed a residual AK, the patient was considered "not cleared" for the analysis irrespectively of the investigator's clinical assessment. |
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Patient Complete Response 12 Weeks After PDT 1
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1
|
The second key secondary efficacy variable in the hierarchic test procedure was the patient complete response (complete clearance of all treated AK lesions) assessed at 12 weeks after PDT 1.
|
12 weeks after PDT 1
|
Lesion Complete Response 12 Weeks After Last PDT
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
The third key secondary efficacy variable in the hierarchic test procedure was the lesion complete response (completely cleared individual AK lesions) assessed at 12 weeks after last PDT.
|
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Patient Partial Response 12 Weeks After Last PDT
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
The fourth key secondary efficacy variable in the hierarchic test procedure was the patient partial response (defined as complete clearance of at least 75% of treated AK lesions) assessed at 12 weeks after last PDT.
|
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Change of Total Lesion Area 12 Weeks After Last PDT
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
The fifth key secondary efficacy variable in the hierarchic test procedure was the change from baseline in the total lesion area per patient assessed at 12 weeks after last PDT.
|
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Overall Cosmetic Outcome 12 Weeks After Last PDT for Patients With Sum Score at Baseline of 0 to 3
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Study personnel assessed and recorded the skin quality of the treated field(s) at baseline and at the end-of-study visit including skin surface, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, mottled or irregular pigmentation, degree of scarring and atrophy. Upon visual examination of the treated field(s), the investigator coded the intensity of each skin parameter on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. The cosmetic outcome evaluations were based on the sum score of the skin quality assessment (sum of all ratings for each skin parameter) at the end-of-study visit (Visit 4 or Visit 6, if retreated). The outcome was calculated using a 5-point scale ranging from "very good" (0) to "impaired" (4) based on the change of the skin quality assessments compared to baseline (0 = 2 points improvement; 1 = 1 point improvement; 2 = no change; 3 = 1 point worsened; 4 = at least 2 points worsened). |
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Overall Cosmetic Outcome 12 Weeks After Last PDT for Patients With Sum Score at Baseline of 1 to 3
Time Frame: 12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Study personnel assessed and recorded the skin quality of the treated field(s) at baseline and at the end-of-study visit including skin surface, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, mottled or irregular pigmentation, degree of scarring and atrophy. Upon visual examination of the treated field(s), the investigator coded the intensity of each skin parameter on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. The cosmetic outcome evaluations were based on the sum score of the skin quality assessment (sum of all ratings for each skin parameter) at the end-of-study visit (Visit 4 or Visit 6, if retreated). The outcome was calculated using a 5-point scale ranging from "very good" (0) to "impaired" (4) based on the change of the skin quality assessments compared to baseline (0 = 2 points improvement; 1 = 1 point improvement; 2 = no change; 3 = 1 point worsened; 4 = at least 2 points worsened). |
12 weeks after PDT 1 or 12 weeks after PDT 2 which might have been necessary because not all lesions were cleared after the first PDT
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Patient Recurrence Rate in Follow-up (Cumulative)
Time Frame: 12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Cumulative numbers of patients with complete response who showed recurrences 12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated).
A patient with complete response was regarded as recurrent if at least one baseline AK lesion recurred during the follow-up (FU).
Complete response was achieved if all treated lesions of the patient were cleared 12 weeks after the last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated).
Lesions that showed recurrence at 6-months (FU1) were also defined as recurrent at 12-months follow-up (FU2).
|
12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Lesion Recurrence Rate in Follow-up (Cumulative)
Time Frame: 12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if retreated)
|
Cumulative recurrence rate in follow-up of baseline AK lesions that were cleared 12 weeks after the last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated) and recurred during 12 months follow-up.
Lesions that showed recurrence at 6-months (FU1) were also defined as recurrent at 12-months follow-up (FU2).
|
12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if retreated)
|
Skin Quality in Follow-up (6 Months)
Time Frame: 6 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Frequency of skin quality changes in follow-up compared to baseline. Study personnel assessed and recorded the skin quality of the treated field(s) at baseline and at the follow up visit (6 months) including skin surface, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, mottled or irregular pigmentation, degree of scarring and atrophy. Upon visual examination of the treated field(s), the investigator coded the intensity of each skin parameter on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. |
6 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Skin Quality in Follow-up (12 Months)
Time Frame: 12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Frequency of skin quality changes in follow-up compared to baseline. Study personnel assessed and recorded the skin quality of the treated field(s) at baseline and at the follow up visit (12 months) including skin surface, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, mottled or irregular pigmentation, degree of scarring and atrophy. Upon visual examination of the treated field(s), the investigator coded the intensity of each skin parameter on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. |
12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Patients' Satisfaction in Follow-up (6 Months)
Time Frame: 6 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Patients' satisfaction of the overall cosmetic outcome was assessed at 6-months follow-up visit using a 5-point scale, where 0=very good, 1=good, 2=satisfactory, 3=unsatisfactory, and 4=impaired.
The lowest rating is the best outcome, the highest rating is the worst outcome.
|
6 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Patients' Satisfaction in Follow-up (12 Months)
Time Frame: 12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Patients' satisfaction of the overall cosmetic outcome was assessed at 12-months follow-up visit using a 5-point scale, where 0=very good, 1=good, 2=satisfactory, 3=unsatisfactory, and 4=impaired.
The lowest rating is the best outcome, the highest rating is the worst outcome.
|
12 months after last treatment (PDT-1 or PDT-2, if re-treated)
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Uwe Reinhold, Prof. Dr., dermatologisches zentrum Bonn
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimated)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- ALA-AK-CT007
- 2013-002510-12 (EudraCT Number)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Actinic Keratosis
-
Dolorgiet GmbH & Co. KGd.s.h. statistical services GmbH; CenTrial GmbHCompletedActinic Keratosis Olsen Grade I/IIGermany
-
Cosmetique Active InternationalNot yet recruiting
-
Centre Dermatologique du RoyCompleted
-
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd.CBCC Global ResearchCompleted
-
University of California, DavisActive, not recruiting
-
Northwestern UniversityWithdrawn
-
Tulane UniversityMayne Pharma International Pty LtdTerminatedActinic KeratosesUnited States
-
Medical University of ViennaTerminatedActinic KeratosesAustria
-
University Hospital RegensburgGerman Research FoundationCompleted
-
St Vincent's University Hospital, IrelandCompleted
Clinical Trials on BF-200 ALA gel
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHCompleted
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHAccovion GmbHCompleted
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHCompleted
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHCompletedKeratosis | Actinic Keratosis | Keratosis, ActinicUnited States
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHCompleted
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHRecruiting
-
Joint Authority for Päijät-Häme Social and Health...Tampere University; Huslab, FinlandCompleted
-
Joint Authority for Päijät-Häme Social and Health...Tampere University; Tampere University Hospital; Päijänne Tavastia Central Hospital and other collaboratorsCompletedActinic Keratosis | Natural Daylight Photodynamic TherapyFinland
-
Biofrontera Bioscience GmbHActive, not recruitingSuperficial Basal Cell CarcinomaUnited States
-
Case Comprehensive Cancer CenterThe Cleveland Clinic; Biofrontera, Inc.RecruitingActinic KeratosisUnited States