SDA/CTFA Topical Antimicrobial Coalition Presentation to FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee March 23, 2005
Jan 14, 2016
SDA/CTFA Topical Antimicrobial Coalition
Presentation to FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory CommitteeMarch 23, 2005
March 23, 2005 2
AGENDA
The Value of Surrogate Endpoint Testing, G. Fischler
Statistical Issues in Study Design, J. Bowman
Questions
The Value of Surrogate Endpoint Testing for Topical Antimicrobial
Products
George Fischler
The Dial Corporation
March 23, 2005 4
Overview
Clinical trials Standardized test methodology Surrogate endpoints
March 23, 2005 5
Definitive randomized and controlled clinical trials, typically used to assess therapeutic benefit are not practical in measuring the prophylactic benefits of topical antimicrobial products
Key Point
March 23, 2005 6
Larson, E. 1995. APIC Guideline for Handwashing and Hand Antisepsis in Health Care Settings.
“Although a definitive, double blind, clinical trial of the effects of handwashing with an antiseptic product on nosocomial infection rates may be infeasible, it appears that, at least in certain high risk situations, such antimicrobial products are beneficial.”
March 23, 2005 7
Clinical Trial Issues for Prophylactic Indications
Size Ethics Immunological host status Mode of transmission Intended beneficiary
– Test subject vs. population
Compliance
March 23, 2005 8
Key Point
Standardized, defined and peer reviewed test methodologies ensure reliability, reproducibility and comparability of test results
March 23, 2005 9
FDA, 1978 TFM
“..the reduction of the normal flora, both transient and resident, has been sufficiently supported to be considered a benefit. The only determination that remains therefore, is how much of a reduction in microbial flora will be required to permit claims for the various product classes.”
March 23, 2005 10
Fischler G.E., et al. 2002. The Effect of Modification to the ASTM E1174 Healthcare Personnel Handwash Method on the Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effectiveness
Three methods– Current ASTM– Pre 1994 ASTM (NDA)– 1994 TFM
Comparison of methods– Inoculum application– Neutralization– Timing of baseline enumeration
March 23, 2005 11
Fischler G.E., et al. 2002. The Effect of Modification to the ASTM E1174 Healthcare Personnel Handwash Method on the Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effectiveness
Test MethodInoculum Addition
Timing of Baseline
Measurement
Baselinelog10 /hand Neutralization
1st Washlog10
Reduction
Final Washlog10
Reduction
CHG in Recovery
Fluid
Current ASTM 3x1.5 ml After inoculum 9.2172 Immediate 2.4225 3.4453 48 ppm
Former ASTM 4.5 ml After inoculum 9.2087 Delayed 2.4622 3.7937 22 ppm
1994 TFM 5 mlAfter inoculum + "cleansing"
wash6.4942 Delayed -0.0073 1.1092 43 ppm
4% CHG Handwash (5 ml product, 15 second wash and 30 second rinse)
Comparison of ASTM E1174 Method and Proposed TFM Method
30 subjects per product
March 23, 2005 12
Sickbert-Bennett E. E., et al. 2004. The Effects of Test Variables on the Efficacy of Hand Hygiene Agents
March 23, 2005 13
Surrogate endpoint testing provides meaningful and appropriate tools to determine the threshold efficacy criteria for topical antimicrobial products
Key Point
March 23, 2005 14
The published literature represents a body of scientific evidence supporting that the proposed microbial reductions reflect clinical benefit, and importantly represent current infection control practice
Key Point
Healthcare Personnel Handwash
March 23, 2005 16
Zafar A.B. et al. 1995. Use of 0.3% Triclosan to Eradicate an Outbreak of MRSA in a Neonatal Nursery
The single additional infection control measure of changing the handwash and bathing product to Bactistat (0.3% triclosan handwash) was associated with the immediate termination of the acute phase of the MRSA outbreak.
Surrogate handwash (ASTM E1174) results (from 1995 Huntington company literature) indicate 1.7 log10 following the initial application of 5 mL of product and 1.9 log10 reduction after ten subsequent applications of 60 seconds duration each time.
March 23, 2005 17
Webster J., et al. 1994. Elimination of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit after Hand Washing with Triclosan
Following introduction of a 1% triclosan handwash, new cases of MRSA colonization were monitored for one year
No changes were made to procedures or protocols
A gradual elimination of MRSA in the ward was noted during the 12 month period
Compared with the previous 12 month period, fewer antibiotics were prescribed, and fewer (P< 0.05) nosocomial infections recorded
March 23, 2005 18
Hilburn J., et al. 2003. Use of Alcohol Hand Sanitizer as an Infection Control Strategy in an Acute Care Facility
Data were collected in one unit of a 500-bed facility over a 16 month period during the introduction of an alcohol (60% ethanol) hand gel
Primary infection types were urinary tract and surgical site infections
Infection types and rates demonstrated a 36% reduction in infection rates for the 10 month period during which the hand sanitizer was in use compared with the previous 6 month period
The study concludes that use of an alcohol gel hand sanitizer is an effective tool in an infection control program
March 23, 2005 19
Fendler E.J., et al. 2002. The Impact of Alcohol Hand Sanitizer Use on Infection Rates in an Extended Care Facility
Data on infection rate and type were collected in a 275 bed extended care facility over a 34 month period, during which an alcohol (60% ethanol) hand gel was used in two units of the facility
Primary infection types were urinary tract, respiratory, and wound infections.
A 30% reduction in infection rate was found in the units where the hand sanitizer was used compared to the other units over the 34 months
March 23, 2005 20
Doebbeling B.N., et al. 1992. Comparative Efficacy of Alternative Hand-washing Agents in Reducing Nosocomial Infections in Intensive Care Units
During an 8 month period a prospective crossover design trial involving 1894 patients in three ICUs was conducted.
A comparison of 60% alcohol (isopropanol), with or without non-medicated soap, and a chlorhexidine gluconate product was made
152 nosocomial infections were seen when chlorhexidine was used, as compared to 202 infections for the soap/alcohol combination
This difference was directional but not significant
Surgical Hand Scrub
March 23, 2005 22
Bryce E.A., et al. 2001. An In-use Evaluation of an Alcohol-based Pre-surgical Hand Disinfectant
A prospective trial of a 70% alcohol (isopropanol) pre-surgical hand treatment compared to 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and 7.5% povidone iodine treatments
Evaluated both short (< 2 hours) and longer surgical procedures
Found no statistical difference in microbial hand counts following the use of any of the treatments for cases less than 2 hours
Matched pair analysis of longer surgical cases also found no difference in treatment
March 23, 2005 23
Parienti J.J., et al. 2002. Hand-rubbing With an Aqueous Alcoholic Solution vs. Traditional Surgical Hand-scrubbing and 30-day Surgical Site Infection Rates
Compared the effectiveness of an alcoholic hand rub solution to either a chlorhexidine or povidone iodine hand scrub at reducing surgical site infections in a randomized trial
Statistically, no difference was found in infection rates between the two procedures in infection rate
Pre-operative Skin Preparation
March 23, 2005 25
Aly R. et al. 1998. Clinical Efficacy of a Chlorous Acid Preoperative Skin Antiseptic
Under clinical conditions a comparison of a standard 4% chlorhexidine gluconate skin prep was compared to a new preparation on both abdominal and inguinal skin sites
An examination of baseline flora at both sites was undertaken, and only subjects whose skin flora met certain criteria were included
The active control product (4% CHG) reduced resident flora by less than the required amount (3 log10) proposed in the TFM immediately after treatment
March 23, 2005 26
The efficacy criteria should be appropriately set to reflect the performance of currently recognized effective products
Conclusion
March 23, 2005 27
AGENDA
The Value of Surrogate Endpoint Testing, G. Fischler
Statistical Issues in Study Design, J. Bowman
Questions
Statistical Issues in Study Design
Jim Bowman
Hill Top Research, Inc.
March 23, 2005 29
Statistical Issues
Log Reduction Criteria– Historically based on point estimates (mean)– No requirement of sample size
Variability needs to be considered– There are several ways to take variability
into account
March 23, 2005 30
Examples from Other OTC Monographs
Sunscreen Monograph– Mean value is calculated and the standard error
is used to calculate the label SPF value
Antiperspirant Monograph– Mean value must be statistically significantly
greater than a certain level (i.e. 20% sweat reduction)
March 23, 2005 31
Statistical Criteria vs Point Estimate
– Objective: mean value > ‘x’ log reductionWith point estimates manufacturers have
historically conducted studies with sample sizes they deemed appropriate and submitted data to the FDA
With statistical criteria being utilized (i.e., statistically greater than a specific number), appropriate sample sizes are a function of the variability of the data.
March 23, 2005 32
Statistical Criteria vs Point Estimate
We have conducted data reviews and statistical simulations using data at hand looking into the variability
Data review consisted of data from 13 studies conducted with an active material, simulations were conducted to better understand the variability
If statistical criteria are to be utilized, then lower criteria will be necessary to achieve the same level of efficacy based on our data review
March 23, 2005 33
Statistical Criteria vs Point Estimate
OTC Antiperspirant monograph requires statistically significantly greater than 20% reduction.
This requires point estimates of sweat reduction to be >25%-30% reduction in order to achieve the level of benefit mandated
March 23, 2005 34
Next Steps
Historically, the FDA and Industry have relied on point estimates.
However, if statistical significance is required, then lower log reduction criteria are necessary to achieve the same level of efficacy based on our data review.
We would like to work with the FDA on setting these criteria for specific indications at specific time points.
Summary
March 23, 2005 36
Clinical trials are not appropriate for assessing prophylactic benefit
Standardized methodologies ensure reproducibility Surrogate endpoints are appropriate Literature supports that the proposed microbial
reductions reflect clinical benefit Efficacy criteria should reflect the performance of
recognized effective products
Key Point Summary