CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

505(b)(2) Clinical Trials for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

This table shows clinical trials for potential 505(b)(2) applications. See the next table for all clinical trials

Trial Type	Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
New Formulation	NCT01349140 ↗	EXPAREL Dose-Response for Single-Injection Femoral Nerve Blocks	Completed	Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc	Phase 1	2012-02-01	EXPAREL™, an investigational drug product, is a new formulation of a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) that is designed to be longer acting than the currently-available local anesthetics. The purpose of this study is to define the dose-response curve of EXPAREL, an investigational extended-duration formulation of the local anesthetic bupivacaine, on both motor and sensory block when applied in a fixed volume adjacent to the femoral nerve.
New Formulation	NCT01349140 ↗	EXPAREL Dose-Response for Single-Injection Femoral Nerve Blocks	Completed	University of California, San Diego	Phase 1	2012-02-01	EXPAREL™, an investigational drug product, is a new formulation of a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) that is designed to be longer acting than the currently-available local anesthetics. The purpose of this study is to define the dose-response curve of EXPAREL, an investigational extended-duration formulation of the local anesthetic bupivacaine, on both motor and sensory block when applied in a fixed volume adjacent to the femoral nerve.
OTC	NCT04021524 ↗	BPO vs Hibiclens Soap for Surgical Preparation	Unknown status	University of Washington	Phase 4	2018-09-10	This is a randomized trial of benzoyl peroxide soap versus Hibiclens soap for surgical preparation. The objective is to determine whether benzoyl peroxide soap, commonly available in drug stores for over-the-counter acne treatment, is as or more effective than the standard surgical preoperative soap, Hibiclens soap (chlorhexidine gluconate), in reducing loads of Propionibacteria (Propi) on or under the skin of patients prior to shoulder arthroplasty (joint replacement).
OTC	NCT05059145 ↗	A Clinical Trial for Chlorhexidine as Treatment for Vulvovaginal Candidiasis	Not yet recruiting	Karolinska Institutet	Phase 2	2021-10-01	The overall aim of this study is to investigate if vaginally applied 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) could be an alternative treatment to oral fluconazole (FLZ), both during an acute episode and as prophylaxis, against recurrent infections of vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC). RVVC is very common in fertile women. Up to six months of treatment with FLZ is recommended for RVVC. Over the last ten years, the use of FLZ has increased markedly in many countries. No major problems have been noted with resistance development, but there is concern that this will occur in the future and alternative treatments are requested. In recent years, it has emerged that flukonazol interacts with several different types of drugs that are common in the patient group; several antidepressants, pain relief at dysmenorrhea (NSAID) and oral contraceptives to name a few. In Sweden an over-the-counter vaginal cream consisting of 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibitane®) is available with the indication antiseptic use in vaginal examinations, especially during childbirth. The product has been used for a long time in various gynecological and obstetric surgical procedures. Hibitane® is approved during pregnancy and the cream is usually well tolerated. Our research group has previously done an in vitro study in which we analyzed the effect of FLZ and CHG's ability to kill fungal cells and to break down existing biofilm or prevent new biofilm formation. The biofilm formation is an important stage for the fungal cells to attach to surfaces such as skin and mucosa and is considered a first step in the development of an infection. In the biofilm, the fungus can hide from the immune system and also to some extent for various treatments aimed against the fungus. The results of the study showed that CHG was better than FLZ both at killing the fungal cells and preventing new biofilm from forming and dissolving already established "old" biofilm. This effect is absolutely crucial for successful treatment with antimycotics. These encouraging results form the basis of the planned study. If CHG is at least as effective as FLZ with little impact on vaginal lactobacillus, with high tolerability and without cytotoxic effect on epithelial cells, the results of the study might lead to major benefits to the patients with reduced risk of systemic side effects such as drug interactions, development of drug resistance and reduced drug costs.

All Clinical Trials for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00002431 ↗	The Safety and Effectiveness of Peridex in Preventing or Delaying Fungal Infections of the Mouth in HIV-Infected Patients	Completed	Procter and Gamble	N/A	1969-12-31	To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Peridex (an oral rinse containing chlorhexidine gluconate) for preventing the occurrence of clinically-evident microbiologically-documented oral candidiasis in HIV-positive patients, who are at risk of the disease based on previous history of candidiasis.
NCT00006075 ↗	A Study of Chlorhexidine in the Prevention of HIV-1 Transmission From Mothers to Their Babies	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 2	1969-12-31	The purpose of this study is to find the best strength of chlorhexidine (a solution that kills germs), for washing the mother's vagina during labor and the newborn baby, that may reduce the chance of HIV being passed from an HIV-positive mother to the baby. When used as a wash on the vagina during labor, and on a newborn shortly after birth, a higher dose of chlorhexidine is more likely to reduce the rate of HIV-1 transmission from mother to baby. Laboratory tests suggest that a higher dose of chlorhexidine will be more effective in killing HIV.
NCT00066950 ↗	Prevention Management Model for Early Childhood Caries (MAYA Project)	Completed	San Diego State University	Phase 3	2003-03-01	The purpose of this study is to determine whether dental disease patterns and transmissable bacteria that are known to cause a severe form of dental decay in young children can be reduced or eliminated by treating mothers and their young infants early on with Chlorhexidine and fluoride varnish applications, respectively as part of a comprehensive Prevention Management Model.
NCT00066950 ↗	Prevention Management Model for Early Childhood Caries (MAYA Project)	Completed	San Ysidro Health Center	Phase 3	2003-03-01	The purpose of this study is to determine whether dental disease patterns and transmissable bacteria that are known to cause a severe form of dental decay in young children can be reduced or eliminated by treating mothers and their young infants early on with Chlorhexidine and fluoride varnish applications, respectively as part of a comprehensive Prevention Management Model.
NCT00066950 ↗	Prevention Management Model for Early Childhood Caries (MAYA Project)	Completed	University of California, San Diego	Phase 3	2003-03-01	The purpose of this study is to determine whether dental disease patterns and transmissable bacteria that are known to cause a severe form of dental decay in young children can be reduced or eliminated by treating mothers and their young infants early on with Chlorhexidine and fluoride varnish applications, respectively as part of a comprehensive Prevention Management Model.

Clinical Trial Conditions for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

Condition Name

Condition Name for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Intervention	Trials
Surgical Site Infection	13
Surgery	6
Gingivitis	6
Bacteremia	5

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Intervention	Trials
Infections	28
Infection	25
Communicable Diseases	23
Surgical Wound Infection	19

Clinical Trial Locations for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Location	Trials
United States	123
Canada	11
India	6
Egypt	5
Turkey (Trkiye)	4

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Location	Trials
California	15
Montana	8
Illinois	8
New York	8
Texas	8

Clinical Trial Progress for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
PHASE4	5
PHASE3	1
PHASE1	1

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Completed	109
Recruiting	23
Unknown status	18

Clinical Trial Sponsors for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Sponsor	Trials
University of California, San Diego	10
Medline Industries	9
3M	5

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE
Sponsor	Trials
Other	202
Industry	49
U.S. Fed	9

Chlorhexidine Gluconate: Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Projection (2026-2035)

Last updated: April 23, 2026

What is chlorhexidine gluconate’s clinical and regulatory footprint?

Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is a broad-spectrum antiseptic used across skin, mucosal, and medical device infection-prevention settings. Its clinical development is mature and largely driven by incremental evidence in specific use-cases (surgical site infection prevention, catheter-related infection reduction, oral health indications, and healthcare decolonization protocols) rather than first-in-class platform trials.

Key evidence themes seen across clinical programs

• Decontamination and infection prevention: Studies repeatedly assess CHG for reduction of surgical site infections (SSI), catheter-associated infections, and cross-contamination risk in healthcare.
• Oral health indications: Trials and real-world programs evaluate CHG rinses/gel for gingivitis, plaque reduction, and periodontal outcomes, often as adjuncts to mechanical hygiene.
• Topical wound and skin antisepsis: CHG is tested against alternative antiseptics for bacterial burden reduction and tolerability in wound-prep or skin cleansing workflows.
• Resistance and microbiology endpoints: Programs commonly track microbial load and culture positivity rather than novel resistance mechanisms, consistent with CHG’s established use.

Where do current CHG clinical trials typically concentrate?

As CHG is off-patent in most jurisdictions and widely available as generic antiseptic, trial activity is concentrated in:

• Comparative effectiveness trials (CHG vs povidone-iodine, quaternary ammonium compounds, or other antiseptics).
• Formulation- and regimen-optimization studies (concentration, dwell time, wipe vs solution vs gel, and frequency of application).
• Specialty care settings (neonatal care, dialysis units, burn care, dental chairside workflows).
• Healthcare workflow studies with cluster designs (bundle compliance and infection endpoints).

What does the clinical development pipeline look like in practical terms?

CHG’s pipeline is best characterized as:

• High-volume but incremental trials tied to specific clinical protocols.
• Low probability of breakthrough claims absent new delivery technology or novel combination products with distinct regulatory pathways.
• More activity in label-expansion and comparative evidence than in new drug substance development.

Actionable implication for R&D and investment: CHG value capture is usually driven by formulation differentiation, delivery systems, and payor- and hospital-adoption economics rather than by new chemical entities.

---

What does the market landscape look like today?

CHG is a staple antiseptic in:

• Hospitals and long-term care for SSI reduction bundles and patient decolonization.
• Outpatient and dental settings via mouth rinses and professional products.
• Home-care wound and skin antisepsis where regulations permit.
• Medical device and procedure preparation where CHG-based skin prep is adopted.

Market structure

• Generic-dominant drug substance economics: CHG is widely manufactured and sold under multiple brand names and generics.
• Differentiation shifts to:
  • Formulation (aqueous vs alcohol-based where permitted, gel vs solution vs wipe, sustained-release or reduced-irritant claims)
  • Regimen (frequency and procedural integration)
  • Device-adjacent delivery (impregnated pads/wipes, pre-moistened applicators)
  • Regulatory positioning (OTC vs Rx depending on jurisdiction and indication)

Where demand is strongest

• Elective surgery and inpatient care workflows: CHG is integrated into standardized bundles for infection prevention.
• Dental hygiene adjuncts: CHG rinses/gel maintain steady pull where clinicians recommend short-course antisepsis.
• Catheter and peri-procedural protocols: CHG often appears in infection-prevention protocols for device-associated risk reduction.

---

How should you project CHG market growth over 2026-2035?

Because CHG is off-patent and sold generically, projections track (1) adoption of infection-prevention bundles, (2) procurement cycles in hospitals and dental systems, and (3) competitive share across generic and branded formulations.

Projection framework (scenario-based, use-case driven)

Assume growth is primarily volume and mix-based, with modest price pressure from generic competition. Use the following drivers:

Upside drivers

• Expansion of standardized CHG decolonization and peri-procedural protocols in hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers.
• Growth in infection-prevention spend tied to hospital quality metrics and reimbursement-linked infection outcomes.
• Increased penetration of CHG wipes and applicator systems that simplify workflow and improve compliance.

Downside drivers

• Aggressive procurement-led price compression in generic categories.
• Substitution to alternative antiseptics in specific institutions or protocols where comparative outcomes are favored.
• Regulatory or guideline shifts that narrow eligible use-cases for certain concentrations or vehicle types.

Base-case market outlook (directional)

• Expect steady, single-digit annual growth in total CHG antiseptic demand through 2030, driven by protocol adoption and procedural volume.
• From 2031 to 2035, growth likely slows slightly, reflecting maturity of adoption and sustained generic price competition, unless there is meaningful penetration of higher-value formats (wipes, gels, and device-adjacent delivery).

What changes the trajectory the most?

For CHG, the biggest swing factor is not the molecule; it is product mix:

• Wipes and applicators often command better stickiness in procurement because they reduce variability and administration burden.
• Lower-irritant or workflow-optimized formulations can win formulary access.
• Evidence-driven label expansion in specific indications can add volumes, but usually in narrow segments.

---

Competitive positioning: where market share tends to accrue

Likely “winning” product characteristics

• Consistent supply and validated manufacturing scale for generic volumes.
• Form factors that map cleanly into institutional bundles.
• Clear compliance documentation (frequency, dwell time instructions, and ease-of-use).
• Strong pharmacovigilance and tolerability packages to reduce formulary friction.

Pricing dynamics to expect

• Substance-level price pressure stays persistent.
• Format-level premiums persist where workflow reduces staff time or improves documented adherence.

---

What are the highest-value commercialization pathways for CHG?

Even though CHG is mature, organizations seeking growth typically pursue one of four routes:

1. Formulation differentiation
   Example paths include improved tolerability, altered vehicle systems, or reduced irritation while maintaining antiseptic performance.

2. Device-adjacent delivery
   Pre-moistened wipes or applicator formats that bundle CHG with clinical workflow (peri-procedure prep, decolonization steps).

3. Regimen adoption through evidence
   Comparative trials that support hospital bundle protocols and reduce decision friction for infection-prevention committees.

4. Indication segmentation
   Focus on specific patient populations and procedural contexts where CHG is already standard-of-care, then expand within that domain.

---

Key takeaways

• Chlorhexidine gluconate is a mature antiseptic with clinical evidence concentrated in incremental, use-case-driven trials rather than breakthrough molecular development.
• Market growth is driven by infection-prevention protocol adoption and product mix, with generic competition keeping price growth constrained.
• The most reliable projection lever from 2026 to 2035 is format premium and workflow integration (wipes, gels, applicators) rather than changes to the active ingredient.

---

FAQs

1) Is chlorhexidine gluconate still seeing meaningful clinical trial activity?

Yes. Activity typically concentrates on comparative effectiveness, regimen optimization, and formulation-specific outcomes tied to antisepsis and infection-prevention workflows.

2) What most influences CHG revenue growth for manufacturers?

Hospital and dental adoption of CHG protocols and the share of sales migrating to higher-value formats such as wipes and applicators that improve compliance and procurement simplicity.

3) Will generic competition cap CHG market growth?

It caps pricing growth, not demand. Total growth is mainly volume and mix-based, with modest annual expansion expected in mature settings.

4) What endpoints dominate CHG trials?

Microbial load reduction, culture or colonization metrics, and infection outcomes such as SSI or device-associated infection endpoints, depending on the indication.

5) Where are the strongest commercialization opportunities?

Product-level differentiation through formulation tolerability and device-adjacent delivery formats, backed by comparative clinical evidence that supports formulary uptake.

---

References

[1] World Health Organization. Guidelines on core components of infection prevention and control programmes at the national and acute health care facility level. 2016.