Different types of emollient cream exhibit diverse physiological effects on the skin barrier in adults with atopic dermatitis.


Journal

Clinical and experimental dermatology
ISSN: 1365-2230
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7606847

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Historique:
revised: 09 02 2022
received: 04 10 2021
accepted: 13 02 2022
pubmed: 16 2 2022
medline: 7 6 2022
entrez: 15 2 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Eczema (atopic dermatitis; AD) is a very common itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and up to 1 in 10 adults worldwide. The skin of eczema sufferers is prone to redness, irritation and dryness because it does not form an effective barrier, i.e. the ability of the skin to stop irritants, allergens and microorganisms getting into the body. Skin barrier dysfunction is a hallmark of AD. The regular and liberal (600 g/week for an adult) use of emollients is recommended for all patients with eczema), even between episodes of itching and redness, to soften and soothe the skin. In England alone, almost 9 million prescriptions for emollient creams were issued in 2018, at a cost of over £50 million. Despite this widespread use, relatively little is known about how commonly prescribed emollient creams affect the skin's barrier, and thus the role of moisturizers in AD development and progression remains unclear. We set out to compare three different types of emollient cream and a no-treatment control. To compare the barrier-strengthening properties of a new moisturizer containing urea and glycerol (urea-glycerol cream; UGC), with those of a glycerol-containing moisturizer (glycerol cream; GC), a simple paraffin cream (PC) with no humectant, and a no-treatment control (NTC). This was an observer-blinded prospective Phase 2 within-subject multilateral single-centre randomized controlled trial in adults with AD (Clinical Trials #NCT03901144). The intervention involved 4 weeks of treatment, twice daily, with the three products applied to one of four areas on the forearms the (the fourth area was the untreated control, randomized allocation). Skin properties [dryness, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration and natural moisturizing factor (NMF) levels] were assessed before, during and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier. The primary outcome was skin sensitivity to the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) after treatment. We performed tests on the skin before and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier. In total, 49 patients were randomized, completed treatment and included in the analysis. UGC significantly reduced the response to SLS as indicated by a reduction in TEWL compared with NTC (-9.0 g/m The study showed that not all emollient creams for eczema are equal. The simple paraffin-based emollient, which represents the most widely prescribed type of emollient cream in England, had no effect on the skin's barrier and reduced the skin's NMF. UGC markedly improved the skin's barrier and protected against irritation. GC performed better than PC, but not as well as UGC. UGC strengthened the skin barrier through a mechanism involving increased NMF levels in the skin, and imparted protection from SLS-induced irritation. By helping correct a major pathophysiological process, UGC has the potential to improve the long-term control of AD. The results show that different emollient creams have different effects on our skin, and only certain types have the ability to improve the skin's barrier and protect against irritants that trigger eczema.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Eczema (atopic dermatitis; AD) is a very common itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and up to 1 in 10 adults worldwide. The skin of eczema sufferers is prone to redness, irritation and dryness because it does not form an effective barrier, i.e. the ability of the skin to stop irritants, allergens and microorganisms getting into the body. Skin barrier dysfunction is a hallmark of AD. The regular and liberal (600 g/week for an adult) use of emollients is recommended for all patients with eczema), even between episodes of itching and redness, to soften and soothe the skin. In England alone, almost 9 million prescriptions for emollient creams were issued in 2018, at a cost of over £50 million. Despite this widespread use, relatively little is known about how commonly prescribed emollient creams affect the skin's barrier, and thus the role of moisturizers in AD development and progression remains unclear. We set out to compare three different types of emollient cream and a no-treatment control.
AIM OBJECTIVE
To compare the barrier-strengthening properties of a new moisturizer containing urea and glycerol (urea-glycerol cream; UGC), with those of a glycerol-containing moisturizer (glycerol cream; GC), a simple paraffin cream (PC) with no humectant, and a no-treatment control (NTC).
METHODS METHODS
This was an observer-blinded prospective Phase 2 within-subject multilateral single-centre randomized controlled trial in adults with AD (Clinical Trials #NCT03901144). The intervention involved 4 weeks of treatment, twice daily, with the three products applied to one of four areas on the forearms the (the fourth area was the untreated control, randomized allocation). Skin properties [dryness, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration and natural moisturizing factor (NMF) levels] were assessed before, during and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier. The primary outcome was skin sensitivity to the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) after treatment. We performed tests on the skin before and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier.
RESULTS RESULTS
In total, 49 patients were randomized, completed treatment and included in the analysis. UGC significantly reduced the response to SLS as indicated by a reduction in TEWL compared with NTC (-9.0 g/m
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The study showed that not all emollient creams for eczema are equal. The simple paraffin-based emollient, which represents the most widely prescribed type of emollient cream in England, had no effect on the skin's barrier and reduced the skin's NMF. UGC markedly improved the skin's barrier and protected against irritation. GC performed better than PC, but not as well as UGC. UGC strengthened the skin barrier through a mechanism involving increased NMF levels in the skin, and imparted protection from SLS-induced irritation. By helping correct a major pathophysiological process, UGC has the potential to improve the long-term control of AD. The results show that different emollient creams have different effects on our skin, and only certain types have the ability to improve the skin's barrier and protect against irritants that trigger eczema.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35167133
doi: 10.1111/ced.15141
pmc: PMC9322554
doi:

Substances chimiques

Emollients 0
Irritants 0
Paraffin 8002-74-2
Urea 8W8T17847W
Glycerol PDC6A3C0OX

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase II Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1154-1164

Subventions

Organisme : Perrigo Nordic
ID : N/A

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.

Références

Acta Derm Venereol. 2001 May;81(2):104-7
pubmed: 11501645
Allergy. 2011 Jul;66(7):934-40
pubmed: 21261659
Br J Dermatol. 1996 Feb;134(2):215-20
pubmed: 8746332
J Invest Dermatol. 2012 Jun;132(6):1561-72
pubmed: 22418868
Acta Derm Venereol. 2015 May;95(5):587-92
pubmed: 25594845
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 06;2:CD012119
pubmed: 28166390
Curr Opin Pediatr. 2005 Aug;17(4):481-5
pubmed: 16012260
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Dec;34(12):2717-2744
pubmed: 33205485
Contact Dermatitis. 1997 May;36(5):256-60
pubmed: 9197961
Curr Probl Dermatol. 2016;49:47-60
pubmed: 26844897
J Dermatolog Treat. 2017 Dec;28(8):766-773
pubmed: 28503966
Acta Derm Venereol. 1999 Jan;79(1):49-51
pubmed: 10086859
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009 Nov;23(11):1267-72
pubmed: 19508310
J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Jan;138(1):68-77
pubmed: 28927888
Clin Exp Allergy. 2021 Mar;51(3):402-418
pubmed: 33550675
Pharmazie. 2003 Oct;58(10):709-15
pubmed: 14609282
Br J Dermatol. 2006 Apr;154(4):651-7
pubmed: 16536807
Skin Res Technol. 2001 Nov;7(4):209-13
pubmed: 11737814
Br J Dermatol. 2006 Jul;155(1):104-9
pubmed: 16792760
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2016;29(3):135-47
pubmed: 27251427
Br J Dermatol. 2016 Nov;175(5):1011-1019
pubmed: 27097823
Cutis. 2015 Dec;96(6):397-401
pubmed: 26761934
J Drugs Dermatol. 2021 Sep 1;20(9):932-938
pubmed: 34491028

Auteurs

Simon G Danby (SG)

Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.

Paul V Andrew (PV)

Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.

Rosie N Taylor (RN)

Statistical Services Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Linda J Kay (LJ)

Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.

John Chittock (J)

Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.

Abigail Pinnock (A)

Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.

Intisar Ulhaq (I)

Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

Anna Fasth (A)

Perrigo Nordic, Kista, Stockholm, Sweden.

Karin Carlander (K)

Perrigo Nordic, Kista, Stockholm, Sweden.

Tina Holm (T)

Perrigo Nordic, Kista, Stockholm, Sweden.

Michael J Cork (MJ)

Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK.
Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Department of Dermatology, The Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH