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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.