Last Updated: August 10, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR POVIDONE-IODINE


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


505(b)(2) Clinical Trials for povidone-iodine

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
OTC NCT01560962 ↗ Efficacy of Over the Counter (OTC) Povidone-Ioldine 5% for Treatment of Acute or Chronic Blepharitis Terminated Southern California Institute for Research and Education N/A 2012-01-01 Objective: To determine the preliminary outcome of external over the counter (OTC) povidone iodine (PI) application in the management of chronic and acute blepharitis vs. currently clinically accepted medical regimen, i.e. eyelid hygiene, antibiotic drops, or antibiotic/steroid ointments. Methodology: One hundred adult patients with chronic and acute blepharitis will be enrolled and randomized into four groups. In group one, 25 patients will be instructed to scrub the lid margin of one eye with 5% PI twice daily for 10 days and the other eye with no intervention. In group two, 25 patients will be instructed to scrub the lid margin of one eye with 5% PI and the other eye will receive warm soaked eyelid wash. In group three, 25 patients will be instructed to scrub the lid margin of one eye with 5% PI and the other eye will receive 1 drop of azithromycin ophthalmic solution twice daily for 10 days. In group four, 25 patients will be instructed to scrub the lid margin of one eye with 5% PI and the other eye will receive tobradex ointment applied to the lid margin. Subjective variables assessed included itchiness, foreign body sensation and eyelid edema (grade 0-4). Objective variables assessed included lid margin redness, meibomian gland plugging and presence/absence of collarets (grade 0-4). Cultures of lid margin at the initiation and at the cessation of treatment were obtained.
OTC NCT07356271 ↗ Effects of Mouthwashes on the Oral Microbiome and Systemic Health NOT_YET_RECRUITING University of Plymouth EARLY_PHASE1 2026-02-01 OVERVIEW While antimicrobial mouthwashes are proven to be clinically effective for management of certain oral microbial diseases, recent studies (Bescos et al 2025, Gallard et al 2025) suggest tha, in addition to targeting bacteria responsible for gum diseases such as gingivitis and periodontitis, they may harm healthy bacteria and disturb the balance and protective role of the oral microbiome (dysbiosis). Most findings on the oral microbiome and mouthwashes involve chlorhexidine use, demonstrating that it may induce dysbiosis and compromise the host oral microenvironment (Bescos et al 2020). A recent study completed in 2025 (Gallardo et al 2025) has shown that CPC mouthwash can also inhibit nitrate synthesis in the mouth. However there remains a need for further research on other agents used in mouthrinses, such as hydrogen peroxide, essential oils, or saline mouthwashes, to determine whether their clinical effectiveness in managing oral disease is accompanied by changes to the oral microbiome. In dentistry, despite this being the place where most people are treated, there are very few research studies that have been performed in primary care settings. Hence this study will be designed for delivery in primary care, to produce 'real-life' data on a patient cohort more typical of general dental practice. This PhD project will select several of the most commonly used over the counter (OTC) mouthwash constituents, used by the general public, that have a limited evidence base, regarding their effects on the oral microbiome in vivo. The first agent to be studied is physiological saline (sodium chloride), as this is the mouthwash advised by dental guidelines for use after tooth extractions, yet there is little evidence to support this approach. No previous studies have previously quantified its effects on clinical outcomes and the oral microbiome. All mouthwashes will be tested in people with, or without, gum disease (gingivitis and periodontitis) to determine which interventions are best used in either health or disease.
>Trial Type >Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

All Clinical Trials for povidone-iodine

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00136344 ↗ Study of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery Completed Santen Gmbh N/A 2003-09-01 Cataract is the most important cause of visual impairment and decreased mobility in the elderly. While surgery is usually successful, it is also responsible for permanent loss of vision in up to 0.1% of patients due to severe post-operative infection (endophthalmitis). Because of this risk, surgery is typically performed on one eye at a time leaving the patient with a monocular cataract causing considerable visual impairment with reduction in mobility and quality of life. A second operation is required which often takes place up to one year later. It is not known at present whether the post-operative complication of endophthalmitis can be prevented by perioperative use of antibiotics. This randomised study (masked and placebo-controlled for topical levofloxacin and unmasked for intracameral injection of cefuroxime) sets out to test in 4 groups, each of 8,750 cataract surgery patients, if either topical antibiotic (levofloxacin) perioperatively or an intraocular (intracameral) injection of antibiotic (cefuroxime) at the end of phacoemulsification cataract surgery or the combination provides effective prophylaxis of post-operative infection (endophthalmitis) compared to controls in whom perioperative antibiotics are not used. The result will provide a scientific basis for prophylaxis of infection (endophthalmitis) following cataract surgery in Europe as well as an accurate figure for the incidence of endophthalmitis following phacoemulsification cataract surgery in Europe for the first time.
NCT00136344 ↗ Study of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery Completed The European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons(ESCRS) N/A 2003-09-01 Cataract is the most important cause of visual impairment and decreased mobility in the elderly. While surgery is usually successful, it is also responsible for permanent loss of vision in up to 0.1% of patients due to severe post-operative infection (endophthalmitis). Because of this risk, surgery is typically performed on one eye at a time leaving the patient with a monocular cataract causing considerable visual impairment with reduction in mobility and quality of life. A second operation is required which often takes place up to one year later. It is not known at present whether the post-operative complication of endophthalmitis can be prevented by perioperative use of antibiotics. This randomised study (masked and placebo-controlled for topical levofloxacin and unmasked for intracameral injection of cefuroxime) sets out to test in 4 groups, each of 8,750 cataract surgery patients, if either topical antibiotic (levofloxacin) perioperatively or an intraocular (intracameral) injection of antibiotic (cefuroxime) at the end of phacoemulsification cataract surgery or the combination provides effective prophylaxis of post-operative infection (endophthalmitis) compared to controls in whom perioperative antibiotics are not used. The result will provide a scientific basis for prophylaxis of infection (endophthalmitis) following cataract surgery in Europe as well as an accurate figure for the incidence of endophthalmitis following phacoemulsification cataract surgery in Europe for the first time.
NCT00136344 ↗ Study of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery Completed City, University of London N/A 2003-09-01 Cataract is the most important cause of visual impairment and decreased mobility in the elderly. While surgery is usually successful, it is also responsible for permanent loss of vision in up to 0.1% of patients due to severe post-operative infection (endophthalmitis). Because of this risk, surgery is typically performed on one eye at a time leaving the patient with a monocular cataract causing considerable visual impairment with reduction in mobility and quality of life. A second operation is required which often takes place up to one year later. It is not known at present whether the post-operative complication of endophthalmitis can be prevented by perioperative use of antibiotics. This randomised study (masked and placebo-controlled for topical levofloxacin and unmasked for intracameral injection of cefuroxime) sets out to test in 4 groups, each of 8,750 cataract surgery patients, if either topical antibiotic (levofloxacin) perioperatively or an intraocular (intracameral) injection of antibiotic (cefuroxime) at the end of phacoemulsification cataract surgery or the combination provides effective prophylaxis of post-operative infection (endophthalmitis) compared to controls in whom perioperative antibiotics are not used. The result will provide a scientific basis for prophylaxis of infection (endophthalmitis) following cataract surgery in Europe as well as an accurate figure for the incidence of endophthalmitis following phacoemulsification cataract surgery in Europe for the first time.
NCT00223002 ↗ Chlorhexidine Versus Povidone-Iodine for Prevention of Epidural Needle Contamination in the Parturient Completed University of Saskatchewan N/A 2004-11-01 Infection after epidural catheter placement is fortunately rare. When it does happen, the affected person can become seriously ill. This study examines which skin disinfectant, chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, decreases the number of bacteria that can be grown from the skin washed with each disinfectant prior to placing an epidural catheter for pain control in labour.
NCT00231153 ↗ Study of Omiganan 1% Gel in Preventing Catheter Infections/Colonization in Patients With Central Venous Catheters Completed Cadence Pharmaceuticals Phase 3 2005-08-01 The purpose of this study is to determine whether treatment with topical omiganan is more effective than treatment with topical povidone-iodine in preventing local catheter site infections and catheter colonization in patients who have central venous catheters.
NCT00231153 ↗ Study of Omiganan 1% Gel in Preventing Catheter Infections/Colonization in Patients With Central Venous Catheters Completed Mallinckrodt Phase 3 2005-08-01 The purpose of this study is to determine whether treatment with topical omiganan is more effective than treatment with topical povidone-iodine in preventing local catheter site infections and catheter colonization in patients who have central venous catheters.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for povidone-iodine

Condition Name

Condition Name for povidone-iodine
Intervention Trials
Surgical Site Infection 18
Covid-19 11
Endophthalmitis 7
Covid19 6
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for povidone-iodine
Intervention Trials
Infections 37
Infection 30
Surgical Wound Infection 28
Communicable Diseases 24
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for povidone-iodine

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for povidone-iodine
Location Trials
United States 132
Egypt 28
France 12
Canada 10
Turkey 8
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for povidone-iodine
Location Trials
Illinois 10
Texas 9
Missouri 8
Florida 8
California 8
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for povidone-iodine

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for povidone-iodine
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
PHASE4 6
PHASE3 1
PHASE2 5
[disabled in preview] 91
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for povidone-iodine
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 94
Recruiting 40
Unknown status 28
[disabled in preview] 44
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for povidone-iodine

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for povidone-iodine
Sponsor Trials
Assiut University 8
Ain Shams University 7
Cairo University 6
[disabled in preview] 13
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for povidone-iodine
Sponsor Trials
Other 292
Industry 25
U.S. Fed 9
[disabled in preview] 9
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial
Last updated: July 27, 2026

Povidone-Iodine Clinical Trials Update, Market Outlook, and Forecast (2026–2036)

Executive summary

Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) is an established, off-patent antiseptic used across wound care, preoperative skin preparation, and mucosal antisepsis. Clinical development is largely incremental, focused on new formulations (aqueous, gel, solution, sustained-release/carrageenan or polymer blends), delivery systems (spray, swab, impregnated dressing), and indication-specific trials rather than new active-ingredient monopolies. Market growth is tied to surgical volumes, chronic wound incidence, antimicrobial stewardship, and home-care usage, while competitive pricing and broad generics cap sustained price expansion. Near-term commercial upside skews toward higher-margin delivery formats (dressing and gel) and institutional formularies adopting standardized concentration/formulation systems.


What is povidone-iodine and which clinical trials are active?

Povidone-iodine is an antiseptic complex of iodine with polyvinylpyrrolidone. Development activity is primarily “formulation-to-use” and “device-to-adjunct” rather than discovery of a new iodine source.

Where clinical trials concentrate

Across sponsors, trial themes typically include:

  • Burn and wound debridement adjuncts
  • Surgical site infection (SSI) risk reduction using specific skin prep regimens
  • Management of diabetic foot ulcers and chronic ulcers
  • Oral and throat antisepsis (where allowed in product labeling)
  • Catheter insertion/pressure injury skin prep adjuncts

What to expect from trial designs in this category

Typical endpoints used for antiseptics include:

  • Bacterial load reduction (baseline vs day x)
  • Time to healing, reduction in wound area, granulation progression
  • Clinical infection rates (SSI, local infection, wound infection)
  • Tolerability and adverse event profiles (irritation, dermatitis)
  • Conformity to stewardship goals (reduced antibiotic use in protocols)

Clinical implication: trial pipelines are usually evaluated on comparative effectiveness vs standard povidone-iodine presentations or vs chlorhexidine/alcohol-based antiseptics, with differentiation driven by sustained release and contact time claims.


What is the current FDA status of povidone-iodine products?

Povidone-iodine antiseptics in the US commonly sit in OTC monograph space (or are regulated as OTC drugs depending on claim). Their regulatory posture affects trial intensity: companies often pursue label expansions and product line differentiation rather than NDA pathways.

Common US regulatory patterns

  • OTC antiseptic drug products for skin/mucosal use
  • Device-adjunct products (impregnated dressings/swabs) with antiseptic claims governed by their regulatory pathway
  • Label modifications for concentration, formulation, and use settings

Practical impact on clinical development

Because the active ingredient is long-established, clinical packages often focus on:

  • Comparative performance of the formulation (spread, contact time, stability)
  • Safety in target use environments (mucosa, perioperative skin, sensitive tissues)
  • Stability and microbiological efficacy consistency

Which indications for povidone-iodine have the most ongoing research?

Search and sponsor behavior for this category typically clusters around high-volume care settings and high-burden wound categories.

Wound care and burn care

Focus areas include:

  • Chronic wound adjuncts where bacteria burden is persistent
  • Post-debridement antisepsis
  • Dressing formats that maintain antiseptic activity over multiple days

Perioperative skin preparation and SSI prevention

Common trial questions:

  • Whether iodine-based prep reduces SSI compared with comparator regimens
  • Whether particular application workflows (scrub vs paint vs pre-soak) improve outcomes
  • Whether skin tolerance is improved by formulation changes

Oral and mucosal antisepsis

Where claims are permitted, studies often compare:

  • Reduction in oral microbial markers
  • Symptom improvement in localized mucosal inflammation
  • Local tolerability

How many povidone-iodine clinical trials are being run, and who sponsors them?

A definitive count of active trials by sponsor cannot be produced without trial registry access in this environment. The category’s practical sponsor profile is usually:

  • Established antiseptic brands and their manufacturing affiliates
  • Wound-care companies developing antiseptic dressings
  • Contract research organizations running protocol series for formulation owners

Commercial implication: pipeline activity is best interpreted as “product line refresh cycles” rather than a concentrated wave of new molecular entities.


What is the povidone-iodine market size and growth drivers?

Povidone-iodine market demand is supported by recurring clinical use across:

  • Hospitals and outpatient surgery centers
  • Long-term care and home health
  • Chronic wound and diabetic foot ulcer prevalence
  • Broader antimicrobial stewardship protocols

Key growth drivers

  • Rising surgical procedures and perioperative infection prevention budgets
  • Increasing chronic wound prevalence (aging populations)
  • Preference for antiseptics with broad-spectrum activity and established safety profiles
  • Uptake of ready-to-use formats (swabs, sprays) and wound dressings

Growth inhibitors

  • Intense price competition from low-cost generics
  • Substitution toward chlorhexidine-based regimens in some protocols
  • Safety and tolerance concerns in specific populations (e.g., iodine sensitivity, thyroid disease considerations in some labels)
  • Regulatory and labeling constraints on antiseptic claims

What market segments perform best for povidone-iodine?

Institutional vs retail

  • Institutional: high-volume usage in surgery and wound care; purchasing focuses on standardization and contract pricing.
  • Retail/home care: growth tied to wound management education and ready-to-use formats.

Dosage form and delivery system

Higher-margin segments typically include:

  • Gel and sustained-release formulations for prolonged contact
  • Antiseptic dressings (impregnated)
  • Prepackaged applicators that reduce preparation steps

Povidone-iodine vs chlorhexidine: how does the clinical evidence affect market share?

Clinical protocols influence purchasing. In many settings, chlorhexidine has strong adoption for skin antisepsis. Povidone-iodine retains resilience due to:

  • Broad compatibility and long-standing use
  • Iodine’s antimicrobial potency and rapid action
  • Formulation diversity that enables contact-time strategies

Market share is therefore less about “overall superiority” and more about:

  • Local SSI prevention bundles and hospital formularies
  • Tolerability and patient population profiles
  • Supply chain and contract pricing

How does povidone-iodine pricing behave and what does it mean for revenue projections?

Povidone-iodine is a mature active ingredient with heavy generic penetration. Revenue growth projections should assume:

  • Limited unit-price increases in most commodity formulations
  • Revenue expansion led by mix shift toward dressings/gel/sustained contact formats
  • Contract renewals with downward or capped pricing over time in tendered hospital markets

Projection framework (directional):

  • Base case: modest volume growth plus low single-digit to mid single-digit value growth depending on mix.
  • Bull case: mix shift to premium formats plus institutional protocol changes in iodine-favored settings.
  • Bear case: chlorhexidine or alternative antiseptics regain protocol share; price compression accelerates.

What is the projected povidone-iodine market outlook for 2026–2036?

A numeric forecast cannot be completed accurately in this environment without market sizing sources tied to a specific geography and market definition (drugs vs dressings vs all antiseptic products under one label). This category’s forecast should be built using:

  • Annual surgical volume and SSI bundle adoption
  • Chronic wound and diabetic foot ulcer prevalence trends
  • Penetration of wound dressing and advanced wound care reimbursement in target regions
  • Generics and price erosion assumptions for OTC antiseptic formats

Actionable outlook (non-numeric):

  • Growth is most durable where povidone-iodine is embedded in wound care workflows and where sustained-release formats reduce clinician time and improve ease-of-use.
  • The main determinant of long-term value is product mix, not active ingredient patent leverage.

What patent estate exists for povidone-iodine products and how does it affect commercialization?

Because povidone-iodine is widely used long term, most active-ingredient protections have expired. Commercial differentiation usually comes from:

  • Formulation patents (specific gels, sustained-release matrices, polymer blends)
  • Methods of use tied to specific protocols, concentration regimens, or application schedules
  • Device/dressing IP (impregnation methods, release profiles, layer designs)
  • Branding and regulatory exclusivity (in limited cases)

Business impact: new entrants can usually access the active ingredient, so defensibility is largely formulation- and device-level.


What generic entry risks exist for povidone-iodine products?

Generic entry risk is structurally high for commodity solution formats because:

  • Active ingredient is off-patent
  • Many products are sold under OTC paradigms
  • Bioequivalence is not the main barrier for topical antiseptic solutions

The main barriers that persist:

  • Packaging format IP (pre-soaked swabs, specific gel matrices)
  • Stability and shelf-life claims that require manufacturing know-how
  • Clinical evidence and label support for specific indication claims

What litigation or settlement activity affects povidone-iodine commercialization?

For this active ingredient, disputes are more commonly around:

  • Labeling and promotional claims
  • Device classification and claims for impregnated products
  • Formulation and process IP for premium formats

A litigation map with dates and outcomes cannot be produced here without a target dataset.


Where are the commercial opportunities: which companies are best positioned?

Market position generally correlates with:

  • Distribution scale in hospitals and retail channels
  • Ability to offer standardized SKU portfolios for tenders
  • Ownership of higher-margin formats (wound dressings, gels)
  • Regulatory execution for label claims and international approvals

Commercial implication: the strongest growth opportunities are typically with companies that control both formulation and device presentation rather than commodity solution producers.


Key takeaways

  • Povidone-iodine development is mostly formulation and delivery-system evolution with indication-specific comparative studies.
  • Market growth is driven by procedure volumes, chronic wound prevalence, and adoption of ready-to-use and prolonged-contact formats.
  • Price competition and generics cap value growth for basic solution/swatch formats; mix shift toward gels and antiseptic dressings is the main value lever.
  • Long-term defensibility is usually formulation/device IP, not active-ingredient patent exclusivity.
  • Forecasting requires market-definition clarity (drugs only vs inclusion of dressings and antiseptic devices) and region-specific tender dynamics.

FAQs

  1. Which povidone-iodine formulations are most used in hospitals for surgical skin preparation?
  2. Does povidone-iodine perform better than chlorhexidine in SSI prevention protocols?
  3. What wound care endpoints do povidone-iodine trials typically measure?
  4. Are povidone-iodine antiseptics in the US regulated as OTC drugs or devices for specific claims?
  5. How do product format innovations (gel, sustained-release dressings) change margins versus commodity solutions?

References

  1. (No external sources were cited in this response.)

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.