IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Study on the Effectiveness of Three Products in the Treatment of Herpes Simplex Labialis
Objectives: This study examined the healing of herpes simplex labialis during treatment with three different products. Herpatch Serum®, a film-forming, transparent patch, was compared to Compeed®, a semiocclusive, hydrocolloid patch, and to Zovirax®cream (active ingredient:acyclovir).
Methods: The study design was prospective, randomized controlled, examiner-blind, with 180 patients (147 ♀and ♂33) at an average age of 31.46(± 10.79) years,in three groups. A: Compeed®(n=60), B: Herpatch Serum®(n=60) and C: Zovirax®(n=60). Patients were examined within 24 hours of the herpes labialis outbreak and received the product for topical application. Localisation and size of the lesion were documented. During follow-up appointments on day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, the healing stage was recorded. Primary endpoint was the time from vesicle stadium until complete healing. Secondary endpoint was the reaction rate and quality of the therapy, evaluated by the clinician’s global assessment of therapy (CGAT) and the subject’s global assessment of therapy (SGAT), rated on a scale from 0-10 (0= no response; 10= excellent response). The data were analysed statistically with Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney-U Test (p < 0.05).
Results: There was no statistically significant difference regarding healing time between products. The median (25- and 75 percentile) was 8.00 (7.00-9.00) for Compeed®, 8.00 (6.75-9.00) for Herpatch Serum® and 8.50 (7.00-9.00) for Zovirax®. Reaction rate and quality of the therapy (CGAT and SGAT) were statistically significantly higher in the Herpatch Serum® group compared to Compeed and Zovirax. The median (25- and 75 percentile) of reaction rate (CGAT) was 7.00 (6.00-8.00) for Compeed®, 8.00(7.25-9.00) for Herpatch Serum®, and 7.00 (5.00-8.00) for Zovirax®. The median (25- and 75 percentile) of quality (CGAT) was 6.00 (6.00-7.75) for Compeed®, 8.00 (8.00-9.00) for Herpatch Serum®, and 6.00 (5.00-7.00) for Zovirax®.
Conclusions: Within the study limitations, Herpatch Serum® may be an effective non-medical alternative to Compeed® and Zovirax® for treating Herpes.
(Supported by Sylphar)
Methods: The study design was prospective, randomized controlled, examiner-blind, with 180 patients (147 ♀and ♂33) at an average age of 31.46(± 10.79) years,in three groups. A: Compeed®(n=60), B: Herpatch Serum®(n=60) and C: Zovirax®(n=60). Patients were examined within 24 hours of the herpes labialis outbreak and received the product for topical application. Localisation and size of the lesion were documented. During follow-up appointments on day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, the healing stage was recorded. Primary endpoint was the time from vesicle stadium until complete healing. Secondary endpoint was the reaction rate and quality of the therapy, evaluated by the clinician’s global assessment of therapy (CGAT) and the subject’s global assessment of therapy (SGAT), rated on a scale from 0-10 (0= no response; 10= excellent response). The data were analysed statistically with Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney-U Test (p < 0.05).
Results: There was no statistically significant difference regarding healing time between products. The median (25- and 75 percentile) was 8.00 (7.00-9.00) for Compeed®, 8.00 (6.75-9.00) for Herpatch Serum® and 8.50 (7.00-9.00) for Zovirax®. Reaction rate and quality of the therapy (CGAT and SGAT) were statistically significantly higher in the Herpatch Serum® group compared to Compeed and Zovirax. The median (25- and 75 percentile) of reaction rate (CGAT) was 7.00 (6.00-8.00) for Compeed®, 8.00(7.25-9.00) for Herpatch Serum®, and 7.00 (5.00-8.00) for Zovirax®. The median (25- and 75 percentile) of quality (CGAT) was 6.00 (6.00-7.75) for Compeed®, 8.00 (8.00-9.00) for Herpatch Serum®, and 6.00 (5.00-7.00) for Zovirax®.
Conclusions: Within the study limitations, Herpatch Serum® may be an effective non-medical alternative to Compeed® and Zovirax® for treating Herpes.
(Supported by Sylphar)