OBJECTIVES: Phase 1 studies were conducted to determine the sensitization (PEP005-005; NCT00357916; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00357916), photoirritation (PEP005-023; NCT00850811; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00850811?term=PEP005-023&rank=1), and photoallergic (photosensitizing) potential (PEP005-024; NCT00850681; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00850681?term=PEP005-024&rank=1) of ingenol mebutate gel 0.01% versus vehicle on normal skin. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Healthy volunteers were enrolled in single-center, randomized, controlled, within-subject comparison trials. PEP005-005 was designed as a repeat-insult patch test study. In PEP005-023, treatment areas were examined after irradiation for photoirritation potential; dermal reactions were evaluated. In PEP005-024, irradiation was performed to determine the photoallergic (photosensitizing) potential of the medication. All treatment areas were graded immediately prior to irradiation and 24, 48, and 72 hours following irradiation. In all studies, local tolerability was assessed visually using an ordinal scoring system at set intervals before and after medication application/irradiation. RESULTS: In PEP005-005 (n=238), a significant difference (p<0.001) was seen between ingenol mebutate and vehicle for mean and total cumulative irritation scores. In PEP005-023 (n=34), mild erythema in all irradiated treatment areas was as expected for the ultraviolet dose. There was no clinically significant irritation in response to ingenol mebutate or vehicle, irrespective of irradiation. In PEP005-024 (n=60), there was no significant irritation in response to either ingenol mebutate or vehicle at their irradiated treatment areas. CONCLUSION: RESULTS from three pharmacology studies in healthy volunteers indicate a favorable topical safety profile for ingenol mebutate gel, with no evidence seen of skin sensitization, photoirritation, or photoallergic potential.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Phase 1 studies were conducted to determine the sensitization (PEP005-005; NCT00357916; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00357916), photoirritation (PEP005-023; NCT00850811; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00850811?term=PEP005-023&rank=1), and photoallergic (photosensitizing) potential (PEP005-024; NCT00850681; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00850681?term=PEP005-024&rank=1) of ingenol mebutate gel 0.01% versus vehicle on normal skin. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Healthy volunteers were enrolled in single-center, randomized, controlled, within-subject comparison trials. PEP005-005 was designed as a repeat-insult patch test study. In PEP005-023, treatment areas were examined after irradiation for photoirritation potential; dermal reactions were evaluated. In PEP005-024, irradiation was performed to determine the photoallergic (photosensitizing) potential of the medication. All treatment areas were graded immediately prior to irradiation and 24, 48, and 72 hours following irradiation. In all studies, local tolerability was assessed visually using an ordinal scoring system at set intervals before and after medication application/irradiation. RESULTS: In PEP005-005 (n=238), a significant difference (p<0.001) was seen between ingenol mebutate and vehicle for mean and total cumulative irritation scores. In PEP005-023 (n=34), mild erythema in all irradiated treatment areas was as expected for the ultraviolet dose. There was no clinically significant irritation in response to ingenol mebutate or vehicle, irrespective of irradiation. In PEP005-024 (n=60), there was no significant irritation in response to either ingenol mebutate or vehicle at their irradiated treatment areas. CONCLUSION: RESULTS from three pharmacology studies in healthy volunteers indicate a favorable topical safety profile for ingenol mebutate gel, with no evidence seen of skin sensitization, photoirritation, or photoallergic potential.
Authors: Mark Lebwohl; Neil Swanson; Lawrence L Anderson; Anita Melgaard; Zhenyi Xu; Brian Berman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven M Ogbourne; Andreas Suhrbier; Brad Jones; Sarah-Jane Cozzi; Glen M Boyle; Melanie Morris; Devi McAlpine; Jenny Johns; Tania M Scott; Kirsty P Sutherland; Joy M Gardner; Thuy T T Le; Aleksandra Lenarczyk; James H Aylward; Peter G Parsons Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Noemi Kedei; Daniel J Lundberg; Attila Toth; Peter Welburn; Susan H Garfield; Peter M Blumberg Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lawrence Anderson; George J Schmieder; W Philip Werschler; Eduardo H Tschen; Mark R Ling; Dow B Stough; Janelle Katsamas Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Lawrence Anderson; Michael Jarratt; George Schmieder; Stephen Shumack; Janelle Katsamas; Peter Welburn Journal: J Clin Aesthet Dermatol Date: 2014-12