Infectious DiseasesPhase 3NCT01762904
Residual Effect of Chlorhexidine-alcohol Compared to Triclosan-alcohol
A Phase 3 study of Infectious Diseases, run by Universidad de Guanajuato at 1 site in Mexico.
Trial summary
Currently there are few options for skin antisepsis, commercially antiseptic triclosan is mainly used. To have more options, this study is necessary, where investigators will determine the residual effect of 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol and choose the one with the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Infectious Diseases
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 135 participants
- Where
- 1 siteMexico
- Study dates
- Jan 2013to Oct 2013
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Healthy adult volunteers
- Volunteers who have completed the stabilization phase of skin flora.
- Volunteers who does not taken a shower or bath 24 hours before the test.
Who cannot join
- Volunteers with a score below 100 Colony Forming Unit per square centimeter (CFU/cm2) of forearm skin surface in the control after the stabilization of the skin flora.
- History of skin allergies or atopy, as well as reactions to alcohol, soaps, iodine, chlorine or latex.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Residual Effect of Chlorhexidine 2% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Compared to Triclosan 1% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70%
Currently there are few options for skin antisepsis, commercially antiseptic triclosan is mainly used. To have more options, this study is necessary, where investigators will determine the residual effect of 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol and choose the one with the best characteristics for skin antisepsis.
Read the detailed description
2% chlorhexidine has been used as an antiseptic for invasive procedures, such as the skin preparation for surgery or insertion of intravascular catheters, thereby decreasing the incidence of infections. The preparation of the skin with antiseptics, helps mechanically clean the surface of the skin to be subjected to surgical intervention, removing fat, sweat, dead cells and kill bacteria that are in the skin. It has been shown that 2% chlorhexidine in solution with 70% isopropyl alcohol has greater activity than chlorhexidine in aqueous solution. The constant use of triclosan causes resistance of some microorganisms on some antibiotics.It has been shown that 0.5% of triclosan in 60% alcohol isopropyl chlorhexidine is more effective than alcohol. The aim of the study is to know if 2% chlorhexidine has more residual effect than triclosan 1%, both antiseptic diluted in 70% isopropyl alcohol.
- Conditions
- Infectious Diseases
- Being tested
- Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controls, Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controls
- Keywords
- Antiseptics, Administration cutaneously, Anti-infecting agents, local
- Medical subject headings
- Communicable Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controlsOther
Also called - Neutralizing agar (D/E neutralizing Agar, Difco TM), - Neutralizing broth (D/E Neutralizing Broth, Difco TM)
Cultures will be taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 of internal area pressed over the skin previously prepared with the substances, then it added a 3 mL of culture broth (D/E Neutralizing Broth, Difco TM) containing a neutralizing agent as washing solution. The skin will scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure will be conducted once again. Both aliquots will gather together in a sterile tube, and a sample of 50 microliters will spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar (D/E neutralizing Agar, Difco TM) and incubate at 35°C for 24 hrs. After incubation, the colonies will be counted.
Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controlsOther
Also called - 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol, - 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol, - Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance, - Deionized water redistilled
All volunteers will be provided with a neutral soap and shampoo without antiseptics for use during a period of two weeks (phase of stabilization of the skin flora). Two antiseptics (2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol) and two controls (Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance and Deionized water redistilled) will be tested as skin antiseptics. The intervention consists of preparing four skin's areas with antiseptics and controls, two in each arm of the volunteer. These ones were approximately 25 cm2 on the forearm for each antiseptic or control. The substances will be applied in an outward circular motion using a sterile swab soaked with the solutions. The solution will remain on the skin for 60 seconds, 3 hours and 24 hours before the bacterial culture will be conducted. For the control where it will be does not apply any substance, the scrub starts immediately.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Whole group of 135 units of measurement | Experimental | The arm is composed of 135 units of measurement, it means, 540 determinations to test 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol and two controls.
The principal unit of measurement it will be four determinations of bacterial counts in a subject for antiseptics and controls to test each of the application sites, and determination as to each separately sampling for each area for each antiseptic forearm. The same subject may be assessed up to three separate occasions provided only after a minimum period of two weeks between each determination.
Interventions:
* Biological: Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controls
* Other: Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controls Receives: Other: Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controls; Other: Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controls |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Evaluate the Residual Effect of Chlorhexidine 2% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Administered Topically
135 determinations to evaluate residual effect of 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol.
All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol was tested. Were prepared the skin area of 25 cm2 randomly selected. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h, everyone on different days.
Cultures was taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 pressed over the skin, added a 3 mL of culture broth. The skin was scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure conducted once again. Both aliquots came together in a sterile tube, a sample of 50 microliters were spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar and were incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
Measured: 24 hours
Evaluate the Residual Effect of Triclosan 1% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Administered Topically.
135 determinations to test 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol.
All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol was tested. Were prepared the skin area of 25 cm2 randomly selected. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h, everyone on different days.
Cultures was taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 pressed over the skin, added a 3 mL of culture broth. The skin was scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure conducted once again. Both aliquots came together in a sterile tube, a sample of 50 microliters were spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar and were incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
Measured: 24 hours
Evaluate the Effect on the Skin Flora Application Process of Antiseptics by Sterile Swab
135 units of measurement to test two controls. Principal unit of measurement: four determinations of bacterial counts in a subject for antiseptics and controls to test each of the application sites.
All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. Deionized water redistilled (Control 2: Control with scrub) and Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance (Control1: Control without scrub) was tested. Were prepared two skin's areas of 25 cm2 randomly selected. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h.
Cultures was taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 pressed over the skin, added a 3 mL of culture broth. The skin was scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure conducted once again. Both aliquots came together in a sterile tube, a sample of 50 microliters were spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar and were incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
Measured: 24 hrs
Secondary outcomes (1)
Detect Presence of Allergy or Skin Reaction by the Antiseptic Application
135 units of measurement to test two antiseptics and two controls. Principal unit of measurement: four determinations of bacterial counts in a subject for antiseptics and controls to test each of the application sites.
All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol, Deionized water redistilled and Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance was tested. We prepared four skin's areas of 25 cm2, two in each forearm. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h.
Presence of allergy or any skin reaction at 24 hours after the antiseptic application.
Measured: 24 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Jan 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2013
- Primary completionApr 2013
- Study completionOct 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (33)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Infectious DiseasesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 135 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad de Guanajuato
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Antisepsia Central
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Alejandro E. Macias, Universidad de Guanajuato
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01762904
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 385-12
- Status last verified
- Jun 2014
- First submitted
- 2 Jan 2013
- Last updated
- 2 Jul 2014
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Karpanen TJ, Worthington T, Hendry ER, Conway BR, Lambert PA. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine digluconate alone and in combination with eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil and thymol against planktonic and biofilm cultures of Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Nov;62(5):1031-6. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkn325. Epub 2008 Aug 13.
PubMed 18703525McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999 Jan;12(1):147-79. doi: 10.1128/CMR.12.1.147.
PubMed 9880479Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, Miller HJ, Awad SS, Crosby CT, Mosier MC, Alsharif A, Berger DH. Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):18-26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988.
PubMed 20054046Edmiston CE Jr, Seabrook GR, Johnson CP, Paulson DS, Beausoleil CM. Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery. Am J Infect Control. 2007 Mar;35(2):89-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.06.012.
PubMed 17327187Swenson BR, Hedrick TL, Metzger R, Bonatti H, Pruett TL, Sawyer RG. Effects of preoperative skin preparation on postoperative wound infection rates: a prospective study of 3 skin preparation protocols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;30(10):964-71. doi: 10.1086/605926.
PubMed 19732018Newman JL, Kaiser NE. Extended activity of healthcare antiseptic products: Manivannan G. Disinfection and decontamination, Principles, applications and related issues. 1st Edition, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. CRC Press Editorial, 2007, Oct: 155-152
Boyce JM, Pittet D; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee; HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control. 2002 Dec;30(8):S1-46. doi: 10.1067/mic.2002.130391.
PubMed 12461507Macias JH, Arreguin V, Munoz JM, Alvarez JA, Mosqueda JL, Macias AE. Chlorhexidine is a better antiseptic than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite because of its substantive effect. Am J Infect Control. 2013 Jul;41(7):634-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.002. Epub 2013 Feb 4.
PubMed 23380379Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004 Oct;17(4):863-93, table of contents. doi: 10.1128/CMR.17.4.863-893.2004.
PubMed 15489352Adams D, Quayum M, Worthington T, Lambert P, Elliott T. Evaluation of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol skin disinfectant. J Hosp Infect. 2005 Dec;61(4):287-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.05.015. Epub 2005 Oct 10.
PubMed 16221509Milstone AM, Passaretti CL, Perl TM. Chlorhexidine: expanding the armamentarium for infection control and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jan 15;46(2):274-81. doi: 10.1086/524736.
PubMed 18171263Karpanen TJ, Worthington T, Conway BR, Hilton AC, Elliott TS, Lambert PA. Penetration of chlorhexidine into human skin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008 Oct;52(10):3633-6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00637-08. Epub 2008 Aug 1.
PubMed 18676882Small H, Adams D, Casey AL, Crosby CT, Lambert PA, Elliott T. Efficacy of adding 2% (w/v) chlorhexidine gluconate to 70% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to peripheral venous cannulation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;29(10):963-5. doi: 10.1086/590664.
PubMed 18771405Hibbard JS, Mulberry GK, Brady AR. A clinical study comparing the skin antisepsis and safety of ChloraPrep, 70% isopropyl alcohol, and 2% aqueous chlorhexidine. J Infus Nurs. 2002 Jul-Aug;25(4):244-9. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200207000-00007.
PubMed 12131506Jones RD, Jampani HB, Newman JL, Lee AS. Triclosan: a review of effectiveness and safety in health care settings. Am J Infect Control. 2000 Apr;28(2):184-96.
PubMed 10760227
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Jul 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Residual Effect of Chlorhexidine 2% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Compared to Triclosan 1% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70%
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01762904
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 385-12
- Conditions
- Infectious Diseases
- Keywords
- Antiseptics, Administration cutaneously, Anti-infecting agents, local
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 135 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad de GuanajuatoUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Antisepsia Central
- Study start
- Jan 2013
- Primary completion
- Apr 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Jan 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 2 Jul 2014
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Currently there are few options for skin antisepsis, commercially antiseptic triclosan is mainly used. To have more options, this study is necessary, where investigators will determine the residual effect of 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol and choose the one with the best characteristics for skin antisepsis.
Detailed description
2% chlorhexidine has been used as an antiseptic for invasive procedures, such as the skin preparation for surgery or insertion of intravascular catheters, thereby decreasing the incidence of infections. The preparation of the skin with antiseptics, helps mechanically clean the surface of the skin to be subjected to surgical intervention, removing fat, sweat, dead cells and kill bacteria that are in the skin. It has been shown that 2% chlorhexidine in solution with 70% isopropyl alcohol has greater activity than chlorhexidine in aqueous solution. The constant use of triclosan causes resistance of some microorganisms on some antibiotics.It has been shown that 0.5% of triclosan in 60% alcohol isopropyl chlorhexidine is more effective than alcohol. The aim of the study is to know if 2% chlorhexidine has more residual effect than triclosan 1%, both antiseptic diluted in 70% isopropyl alcohol.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Whole group of 135 units of measurement | Experimental | Other: Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controls, Other: Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controlsThe arm is composed of 135 units of measurement, it means, 540 determinations to test 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol and two controls. The principal unit of measurement it will be four determinations of bacterial counts in a subject for antiseptics and controls to test each of the application sites, and determination as to each separately sampling for each area for each antiseptic forearm. The same subject may be assessed up to three separate occasions provided only after a minimum period of two weeks between each determination. Interventions: * Biological: Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controls * Other: Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controls |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Healthy adult volunteers
- Volunteers who have completed the stabilization phase of skin flora.
- Volunteers who does not taken a shower or bath 24 hours before the test.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Volunteers with a score below 100 Colony Forming Unit per square centimeter (CFU/cm2) of forearm skin surface in the control after the stabilization of the skin flora.
- History of skin allergies or atopy, as well as reactions to alcohol, soaps, iodine, chlorine or latex.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Bacterial culture of the prepared skin's areas with two antiseptics and two controlsAlso: - Neutralizing agar (D/E neutralizing Agar, Difco TM), - Neutralizing broth (D/E Neutralizing Broth, Difco TM)Cultures will be taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 of internal area pressed over the skin previously prepared with the substances, then it added a 3 mL of culture broth (D/E Neutralizing Broth, Difco TM) containing a neutralizing agent as washing solution. The skin will scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure will be conducted once again. Both aliquots will gather together in a sterile tube, and a sample of 50 microliters will spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar (D/E neutralizing Agar, Difco TM) and incubate at 35°C for 24 hrs. After incubation, the colonies will be counted. | Other | Whole group of 135 units of measurement |
| Preparing skin's areas to be tested with two antiseptics and two controlsAlso: - 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol, - 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol, - Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance, - Deionized water redistilledAll volunteers will be provided with a neutral soap and shampoo without antiseptics for use during a period of two weeks (phase of stabilization of the skin flora). Two antiseptics (2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol and 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol) and two controls (Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance and Deionized water redistilled) will be tested as skin antiseptics. The intervention consists of preparing four skin's areas with antiseptics and controls, two in each arm of the volunteer. These ones were approximately 25 cm2 on the forearm for each antiseptic or control. The substances will be applied in an outward circular motion using a sterile swab soaked with the solutions. The solution will remain on the skin for 60 seconds, 3 hours and 24 hours before the bacterial culture will be conducted. For the control where it will be does not apply any substance, the scrub starts immediately. | Other | Whole group of 135 units of measurement |
Primary outcome
Evaluate the Residual Effect of Chlorhexidine 2% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Administered Topically
Time frame: 24 hours
135 determinations to evaluate residual effect of 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol. All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol was tested. Were prepared the skin area of 25 cm2 randomly selected. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h, everyone on different days. Cultures was taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 pressed over the skin, added a 3 mL of culture broth. The skin was scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure conducted once again. Both aliquots came together in a sterile tube, a sample of 50 microliters were spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar and were incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
Evaluate the Residual Effect of Triclosan 1% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Administered Topically.
Time frame: 24 hours
135 determinations to test 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol. All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. 1% triclosan in 70% isopropyl alcohol was tested. Were prepared the skin area of 25 cm2 randomly selected. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h, everyone on different days. Cultures was taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 pressed over the skin, added a 3 mL of culture broth. The skin was scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure conducted once again. Both aliquots came together in a sterile tube, a sample of 50 microliters were spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar and were incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
Evaluate the Effect on the Skin Flora Application Process of Antiseptics by Sterile Swab
Time frame: 24 hrs
135 units of measurement to test two controls. Principal unit of measurement: four determinations of bacterial counts in a subject for antiseptics and controls to test each of the application sites. All volunteers was provided with a neutral soap without antiseptics for use of two weeks. Deionized water redistilled (Control 2: Control with scrub) and Scrub the skin without prior application of any substance (Control1: Control without scrub) was tested. Were prepared two skin's areas of 25 cm2 randomly selected. The solution remained on the skin for 60s, 3h and 24h. Cultures was taken with a scrub-cup of 5 cm2 pressed over the skin, added a 3 mL of culture broth. The skin was scrub with a sterile rubber policeman for 1 minute and the procedure conducted once again. Both aliquots came together in a sterile tube, a sample of 50 microliters were spread in a plate containing a neutralizing agar and were incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
1 secondary outcome
Detect Presence of Allergy or Skin Reaction by the Antiseptic Application
Time frame: 24 hours
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Jul 2014.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 18703525Karpanen TJ, Worthington T, Hendry ER, Conway BR, Lambert PA. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine digluconate alone and in combination with eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil and thymol against planktonic and biofilm cultures of Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Nov;62(5):1031-6. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkn325. Epub 2008 Aug 13.
- Background: PubMed 9880479McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999 Jan;12(1):147-79. doi: 10.1128/CMR.12.1.147.
- Background: PubMed 20054046Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, Miller HJ, Awad SS, Crosby CT, Mosier MC, Alsharif A, Berger DH. Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):18-26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988.
- Background: PubMed 17327187Edmiston CE Jr, Seabrook GR, Johnson CP, Paulson DS, Beausoleil CM. Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery. Am J Infect Control. 2007 Mar;35(2):89-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.06.012.
- Background: PubMed 19732018Swenson BR, Hedrick TL, Metzger R, Bonatti H, Pruett TL, Sawyer RG. Effects of preoperative skin preparation on postoperative wound infection rates: a prospective study of 3 skin preparation protocols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;30(10):964-71. doi: 10.1086/605926.
- BackgroundNewman JL, Kaiser NE. Extended activity of healthcare antiseptic products: Manivannan G. Disinfection and decontamination, Principles, applications and related issues. 1st Edition, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. CRC Press Editorial, 2007, Oct: 155-152
- Background: PubMed 12461507Boyce JM, Pittet D; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee; HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control. 2002 Dec;30(8):S1-46. doi: 10.1067/mic.2002.130391.
- Background: PubMed 23380379Macias JH, Arreguin V, Munoz JM, Alvarez JA, Mosqueda JL, Macias AE. Chlorhexidine is a better antiseptic than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite because of its substantive effect. Am J Infect Control. 2013 Jul;41(7):634-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.002. Epub 2013 Feb 4.
- Background: PubMed 15489352Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004 Oct;17(4):863-93, table of contents. doi: 10.1128/CMR.17.4.863-893.2004.
- Background: PubMed 16221509Adams D, Quayum M, Worthington T, Lambert P, Elliott T. Evaluation of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol skin disinfectant. J Hosp Infect. 2005 Dec;61(4):287-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.05.015. Epub 2005 Oct 10.
- Background: PubMed 18171263Milstone AM, Passaretti CL, Perl TM. Chlorhexidine: expanding the armamentarium for infection control and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jan 15;46(2):274-81. doi: 10.1086/524736.
- Background: PubMed 18676882Karpanen TJ, Worthington T, Conway BR, Hilton AC, Elliott TS, Lambert PA. Penetration of chlorhexidine into human skin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008 Oct;52(10):3633-6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00637-08. Epub 2008 Aug 1.
Related trials for Infectious Diseases
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Phase I Open-Label Safety Trial of Pembrolizumab for Neurological Post- Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PD1-PASC I)
Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
A Pivotal Safety and Immunogenicity GBS-NN/NN2 Vaccine Maternal Immunisation Trial
Streptococcus Agalactiae Infection, Neonatal Sepsis
Not yet recruiting
HealthMpowerment Korea: Pilot Testing the Cultural Adaptation of a Digital HIV Intervention for Men Who Have Sex With Men in South Korea
HIV Infections, HIV Prevention and Care
Not yet recruiting
Expanded Diagnostic Strategy in Older Adults Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Acute Respiratory Infection
Acute Respiratory Infection
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
A Study of Sequential Therapy With Daplusiran/Tomligisiran (DAP/TOM) Followed by Bepirovirsen in Participants Living With Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB)
Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection, Hepatitis B
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study of Infectious Diseases, run by Universidad de Guanajuato at 1 site in Mexico.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Jul 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Mexico. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 2 Jul 2014). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Evaluate the Residual Effect of Chlorhexidine 2% / Isopropyl Alcohol 70% Administered Topically (time frame: 24 hours). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01762904, which also lists 33 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Jul 2014.