Antiseptic efficacy of an innovative perioperative surgical skin preparation: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 analysis

Charles E Edmiston, Philip Lavin, Maureen Spencer, Gwen Borlaug, Gary R Seabrook, David Leaper, Charles E Edmiston, Philip Lavin, Maureen Spencer, Gwen Borlaug, Gary R Seabrook, David Leaper

Abstract

Background: An innovative approach to perioperative antiseptic skin preparation is warranted because of potential adverse skin irritation, rare risk of serious allergic reaction, and perceived diminished clinical efficacy of current perioperative antiseptic agents. The results of a confirmatory US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) phase 3 efficacy analysis of a recently approved innovative perioperative surgical skin antiseptic agent are discussed.

Methods: The microbial skin flora on abdominal and groin sites in healthy volunteers were microbiologically sampled following randomization to either ZuraGard, a 2% chlorhexidine/70% isopropyl alcohol preparation (Chloraprep), or a control vehicle (alcohol-free ZuraGard). Mean log10 reduction of colony-forming units (CFU) was assessed at 30 seconds, 10 minutes, and 6 hours.

Results: For combined groin sites (1,721 paired observations) at all time points, the mean log10 CFU reductions were significantly greater in the ZuraGard group than in the Chloraprep group (P < .02). Mean log10 CFU reductions across combined abdominal and groin sites at all time points (3,277 paired observations) were significantly greater in the ZuraGard group than in the Chloraprep group (P < .02).

Conclusions: A confirmatory FDA phase 3 efficacy analysis of skin antisepsis in human volunteers documented that ZuraGard was efficacious in significantly reducing the microbial burden on abdominal and groin test sites, exceeding that of Chloraprep. No significant adverse reactions were observed following the application of ZuraGard.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02831998 and NCT02831816.

References

    1. Wakeam E, Molina G, Shah N, et al. Variation in the cost of 5 common operations in the United States. Surgery 2017;162:592–604.
    1. Meeks DW, Lally KP, Carrick MM, et al. Compliance with guidelines to prevent surgical site infections: as simple as 1-2-3? Am J Surg 2011;201:76–83.
    1. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. New Eng J Med 2014;370:1198–1208.
    1. Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011;25:135–153.
    1. Chow WB, Merkow RP, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY. Association between postoperative complications and reoperation for patients undergoing geriatric surgery and the effect of reoperation on mortality. Am Surg 2012;78:1137–1142.
    1. Vogel TR, Dombrovskiy VY, Lowry SF. Impact of infectious complications after elective surgery on hospital readmission and late deaths in the US Medicare population. Surg Infect 2012;13:307–311.
    1. Li LT, Mills WL, White DL, et al. Causes and prevalence of unplanned readmissions after colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61:1175–1181.
    1. Gibson A, Tevis S, Kennedy G. Readmission after delayed diagnosis of surgical site infection: a focus on prevention using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Am J Surg 2014;207:832–839.
    1. Merkow RP, Ju MH, Chung JW, et al. Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United States. JAMA 2015;313:483–895.
    1. Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725–730.
    1. Kaye KS, Anderson DJ, Sloane R, et al. The effect of surgical site infection on older operative patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:46–54.
    1. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in US hospitals, 2002. Public Health Reports 2007;122:160–166.
    1. World Health Organization Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. [White Paper]. Published 2016. Accessed April 1, 2019.
    1. Berrios-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, et al. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg 2017;152:784–791.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Surgical Site Infection: Prevention and Treatment. NICE Guideline [NG125] April 2019. . Published April 2019. Accessed August 28, 2019.
    1. Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C, et al. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update. J Am Coll Surg 2017;224:59–74.
    1. Sidhwa F, Itani KMF. Skin preparation before surgery: options and evidence. Surg Infect 2015;16:14–23.
    1. Hakkarainen TW, Dellinger EP, Evans HI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of skin antiseptic agents in reducing surgical site infection: AS report from the Washington State surgical care and outcomes assessment program. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:336–344.
    1. Maiwald M, Chan ESY. The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis. PLoS One 2012;7:e44277.
    1. Edmiston CE, Spencer M. Patient care interventions to help reduce the risk of surgical site infections. AORN 2014;100:590–602.
    1. Kampf G. Acquired resistance to chlorhexidine: is it time to establish an antiseptic stewardship’ initiative? J Hosp Infect 2016; 94:213–227.
    1. Williamson DA, Carter GP, and Howden BP. Current and emerging topical antibacterials and antiseptics: agents, action, and resistance patterns. Clin Microbiol Rev 2017;30 827–860.
    1. Addetia A, Greninger AL, Adler A, et al. A novel, widespread qaca allele results in reduced chlorhexidine susceptibility in Staphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019;63(6): pii: e02607-18.
    1. Baraldi MM, Gnatta JR, Padoveze MC. Risks and benefits of using chlorhexidine gluconate in handwashing: a systematic literature review. Am J Infect Control 2019;47:704–714.
    1. FDA drug safety podcast: FDA warns about rare but serious allergic reactions with the skin antiseptic chlorhexidine gluconate. Food and Drug Administration website. Published 2017. Accessed August 12, 2019.
    1. Crnich CJ, Pop-Vicas AE, Hedberg TG, Perl TM. Efficacy and safety of a novel antimicrobial preoperative skin preparation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:1157–1163.
    1. Final Rule: Safety and Effectiveness of Health Care Antiseptics. Federal Register 12/20/2017 vol. 82, no. 243: 60474–60503, 21 CFR 310.
    1. Maiwald M, Widmer AF. WHO recommendation for surgical skin antisepsis in premature. Lancet Infect Dis 2017;17:1023–1024.
    1. Dumville JC, MsFarlane E, Edwards P, Lipp A, Holmes A, Liu Z. Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infection after clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;120:CD003949.
    1. Garvey LH, Krøigaard M, Poulsen LK, Skov PS, Mosbech H, Venemalm L, et al. IgE-mediated allergy to chlorhexidine. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:409–415.
    1. Abdallah C. Perioperative chlorhexidine allergy: is it serious? J Anesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:152–154.
    1. Moka E, Argyra E, Siafaka I, Vadalouca A. Chlorhexidine: hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions in the perioperative setting. J Anesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:145–148.
    1. Horner C, Mawer D, Wilcox M. Reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine in staphylococci: is it increasing and does it matter? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:2547–2559.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi