CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Actions
Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier serves as a temporary
bioresorbable barrier separating apposing tissue surfaces. The physical
presence of the membrane separates adhesiogenic tissue while the normal tissue
repair process takes place. When applied as directed, Seprafilm Adhesion
Barrier can be expected to reduce adhesions within the abdominopelvic cavity.
Approximately 24 to 48 hours after placement, the membrane becomes a hydrated
gel that is slowly resorbed within one week. Components are excreted in less
than 28 days.
Clinical Studies
The safety and effectiveness of Seprafilm Adhesion
Barrier have been evaluated in several studies. Initial multicenter safety
studies have been performed in abdominal and gynecologic surgical procedures
enrolling a total of 32 treatment and control patients
No serious adverse events were definitely attributed to
the use of Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier in these studies. Vital signs and
laboratory values showed no clinically relevant differences between treatment
and control groups.
A randomized, masked, multicenter clinical study
involving 183 patients was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness
of Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier in ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis
patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier was applied
directly on the omentum and bowel to separate tissues from the overlying
abdominal wall and midline incision. Patients enrolled were undergoing major
abdominal surgery involving colectomy followed by ileal pouch anal anastomosis
and formation of a temporary loop ileostomy. During the ileostomy closure
several weeks later, the incidence, extent, and severity of adhesions to the
midline incision were evaluated.
In the abdominal study, the incidence of adhesions to the
area of membrane use, the midline incision was 94% (n=85) in control patients
and 49% (n=42) in patients treated with Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier
(p<0.0001). An absence of adhesions was observed in 51% (n=43) of patients
treated with Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier and 6% (n=5) of control patients. The mean
extent of adhesions (percentage of the incision length involved) among
Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier patients was 23% (n=85) compared to 63% (n=90) in
the control group (p<0.0001). A comparative analysis of the severity* of
adhesions demonstrated the presence of dense adhesions occurring in 58% (n=52)
of the control group and in 15% (n=13) of the Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier group.
Overall, the adhesions in the Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier group were
significantly less severe than in the control group (p<0.0001).
A second randomized, masked, multicenter clinical study
involving 127 women was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier on serosal tissue and pelvic organ structures deep
in the pelvis in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Seprafilm Adhesion
Barrier was applied to the anterior and posterior surfaces of the uterus
following a myomectomy via laparotomy. Postoperative adhesion formation was
evaluated during a second-look laparoscopy performed an average of 23 days
later. The incidence of adhesions to the uterus (number of abdominopelvic
locations adherent to the uterus) in patients treated with Seprafilm Adhesion
Barrier was 4.98 (n=49) compared to control values of 7.88 (n=48)
(p<0.0001). The severity** of adhesions was reduced from 2.43 (n=65) in the
control group to 1.94 (n=54) in the Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier group
(p<0.01). Reduction in extent scores from 1.68 (n=65) to 1.23 (n=54)
(p<0.01) were also demonstrated in the control and Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier
groups, respectively. The area of the uterus associated with adhesions was
reduced from 18.72 (n=54) to 13.23 (n=65) in the patients treated with
Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier versus control patients (p<0.02). The portion of
patients with adnexal adhesions to the posterior uterus was reduced from 69%
(n=45) to 52% (n=28) in patients with Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier compared to
control patients (p<0.01).
A controlled, randomized post-market approval study
involving 1791 patients (1701 undergoing intestinal resection and 90 patients
undergoing adhesiolysis for existing SBO) was conducted to evaluate the safety
and effectiveness of Seprafilm in reducing bowel obstructions. In this study,
application of Seprafilm to a fresh anastomosis was optional. Up to 10
membranes (mean of 4.4, median of 4.0, and range of 0.5 to 10) were applied to
the organs and tissues that sustained direct surgical trauma, or were
potentially adhesio- genic. All patients were followed for incidence of bowel
obstructions until study completion at 5 years for a mean of 3.4 year follow up
(median of 3.4 years and a range of 3 days to 5.0 years).
Using protocol defined criteria, 15 of the 840 intestinal
resection patients (1.8%) in the Seprafilm group experienced an adhesive SBO
that required reoperation compared to 29 of 861 intestinal resection patients
(3.4%) in the control group (p<0.05). When all cases of bowel obstruction
were considered, including those in which bowel obstruction could not be ruled
out, 109 of 888 patients (12%) in the Seprafilm group and 106 of 903 patients
(12%) in the control group had bowel obstruction. Of the 90 patients with
existing bowel obstructions, no significant difference in incidence of adhesive
SBO requiring reoperation was found (3 of the 48 Seprafilm patients versus 1 of
42 control patients).
*Severity is defined as: (1) filmy thickness, avascular;
(2) moderate thickness, limited vascularity; or (3) dense thickness,
vascularized.
**Severity is defined as: (0) no adhesion present; (1)
filmy avascular; (2) some vascularity; (3) cohesive
REFERENCES
1. Beck DE, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, Kaufman HS, van Goor
H,Wolff BG; Adhesion Study Group Steering Committee; A prospective, randomized,
multi- center, controlled study of the safety of Seprafilm adhesion barrier in
abdomino- pelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003
Oct;46(10):1310-9.
2. Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio VW, et al. Prevention of
postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable
membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll
Surg. 1996;183:297-306.
3. Burns, J.W., S. Cox, and A.E. Walts. Water Insoluble
Derivatives of Hyaluronic Acid: United States Patent Number 5,017,229. 1991.
4. Diamond MP, For the Seprafilm Adhesion Study Group.
Reduction of adhesions after uterine myomectomy by Seprafilm® membrane (HAL-F):
a blinded, prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. Fertil Steril.
1996;66:904-910.
5. Fazio VW, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, et al. Reduction in
adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm adhesion barrier after intestinal
resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Jan;49(1):1-11.