This study is an open-label, multi-centric clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TK-254RX in patients with contusions. The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety of TK-254RX. Secondly objective is to evaluate the efficacy of contusions and adhesion of TK-254RX.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
221
One EFTS is applied to the injured area over 7 days
Medical Practice Ebert
Siemensstr, Bonn, Germany
Medical Practice Prof. Predel
Siemensstr, Bonn, Germany
Medical Practice Schaale-Maas
Siemensstr, Bonn, Germany
Medical Practice Pabst
Sportschule Puch, Fürstenfeldbruck, Germany
Recording adverse event and serious adverse event
Characterization of occurence of adverse events or serious adverse events of TK-254RX
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score on pain-on-movement (POM)
VAS score from no pain (0 mm) to worst pain (100 mm) on POM by a patient at each time point
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score on pain-at-rest (PAR)
VAS score from no pain (0 mm) to worst pain (100 mm) on PAR (at least 5 minutes rest) by a patient at each time point
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Sum of Pain Intensity Difference (SPID) on pain-on-movement (POM)
Calculating the area under the curve for the difference of each pain intensity score by 100-mm-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on movement from the baseline over day 1 to day 8
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Sum of Pain Intensity Difference (SPID) on pain-at-rest (PAR)
Calculating the area under the curve for the difference of each pain intensity score by 100-mm-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at rest from the baseline over day 1 to day 8
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Pain Intensity Difference (PID) on pain-on movement (POM)
Difference of each pain intensity score by VAS on POM from the baseline at each time point
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Pain Intensity Difference (PID) on pain-at-rest (PAR)
Difference of each pain intensity score by VAS on PAR form the baseline at each time point
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Medical Practice Gastl
Römerstraße, Gilching, Germany
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Time to meaningful/optimal reduction
Time to meaningful/optimal reduction of pain defined as first at least 30% (meaningful) and 50% (optimal) reduction from baseline of VAS on POM
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Time to complete resolution
* Time to complete resolution of POM VAS value of 0 mm * Time to complete resolution of PAR VAS value of 0 mm
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Responder rate 1
Responder rate is defined as the number of patients achieving at least 50% reduction from baseline in the VAS scores for POM at 48 hours
Time frame: Day 3
Responder rate 2
number of patients able to resume training / normal physical activity by 168 hours
Time frame: Day 8
Resolution of contusion
The percentage of patients who showed POM=PAR=0 at 168 hours
Time frame: Day 8
Global efficacy assessments 1 by investigator
The global efficacy assessments are evaluated by the investigator as the response to the following questions: "Considering how this treatment has affected the patient since he/she started in the study, how well is he/she doing?" It is assessed on the following 5-point Likert scale: 0 = very good, 1 = good, 2 = fair, 3 = poor, 4 = very poor.
Time frame: Day 3, Day 4 and Day 8
Global efficacy assessments 2 by investigator
The global efficacy assessments are evaluated by the investigator as the response to the following questions: "How would you rate this medication for the treatment of this contution?" It is assessed on the following 5-point Likert scale: 0 = excellent, 1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = moderate, 4 = poor.
Time frame: Day 3, Day 4 and Day 8
Global efficacy assessments 1 by patients
The global efficacy assessments are evaluated by the patients as the response to the following questions: "Considering how this treatment has affected you since you started in the study, how well are you doing?" It is assessed on the following 5-point Likert scale: 0 = very good, 1 = good, 2 = fair, 3 = poor, 4 = very poor.
Time frame: Day 3, Day 4 and Day 8
Global efficacy assessments 2 by patients
The global efficacy assessments are evaluated by the patients as the response to the following questions: "How do you rate this medication as a treatment for your contusion?" It is assessed on the following 5-point Likert scale: 0 = excellent, 1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor.
Time frame: Day 3, Day 4 and Day 8
Characterization of local tolerability
Assessing the local tolerability by using the 8-point dermal response (0: No evidence of irritation, 1: Minimal erythema, barely perceptible, 2: Definite erythema, readily visible, minimal edema or minimal papular response, 3: Erythema and papules, 4: Definite edema, 5: Erythema, edema, and papules, 6: Vesicular eruption, 7: Strong reaction spreading beyond test site) and other effects score (0: No other effect detected, A(0): Slightly glazed appearance, B(1): Markedly glazed appearance, C(2): Glazing with peeling and cracking, F(3): Glazing with fissures, G(3): Film of dried serous exudates covering all or part of the application site, H(3): Small petechial erosions and/or scabs) according to FDA recommendation
Time frame: Day 8
Number of use of rescue medication
Number of rescue medication use during clinical study
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8
Patch adhesion assessed by the site staff
Adhesive power of the EFTS will be visually assessed and classified by the site staff in a 5-point-score (0=≥ 90% adhered / 1= ≥75% to \<90% adhered / 2=≥50% to \<75% adhered / 3=\>0% to \<50% adhered / 4=completely detached)
Time frame: Day 2 to Day 5
Patch adhesion assessed by patient
Adhesive power of the EFTS will be visually assessed and classified by a patient in a 5-point-score (0=≥ 90% adhered / 1= ≥75% to \<90% adhered / 2=≥50% to \<75% adhered / 3=\>0% to \<50% adhered / 4=completely detached)
Time frame: Day 1 to Day 8