Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of different emollients in vivo, and the important matter of patient preference is generally overlooked. METHODS: We report the results of an assessor-blinded, bilateral, concurrent comparison of two emollient pharmaceutical presentati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Djokic-Gallagher, Jasmina, Rosher, Phil, Walker, Jennine, Hart, Valerie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22956880
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S32642
_version_ 1782241491613122560
author Djokic-Gallagher, Jasmina
Rosher, Phil
Walker, Jennine
Hart, Valerie
author_facet Djokic-Gallagher, Jasmina
Rosher, Phil
Walker, Jennine
Hart, Valerie
author_sort Djokic-Gallagher, Jasmina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of different emollients in vivo, and the important matter of patient preference is generally overlooked. METHODS: We report the results of an assessor-blinded, bilateral, concurrent comparison of two emollient pharmaceutical presentations, ie, Doublebase gel (DB) and Aqueous cream BP (AC), applied by 20 participants three times daily for 7 consecutive days. The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative improvement in skin hydration measured by corneometry on days 1, 3, and 5 immediately before the first application and approximately 2 hours after the third application of the day. Secondary endpoints were investigator assessment of skin condition at these time points and participant assessment of product acceptability at the end of the study. RESULTS: Both products increased skin hydration, but the effect of AC was relatively modest, with morning values readily returning to pretreatment levels. Hydration levels were higher for DB gel, maintained at all time points, and showed stepwise, cumulative increases over the 7 days of use. Overall patient satisfaction scores were higher for DB gel, and especially for “consistency,” “ease of use,” and “ease of absorption into the skin.” Eighty-five percent of participants expressed a desire to use DB gel again as compared with 40% for AC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3426268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34262682012-09-06 Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products Djokic-Gallagher, Jasmina Rosher, Phil Walker, Jennine Hart, Valerie Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol Original Research BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of different emollients in vivo, and the important matter of patient preference is generally overlooked. METHODS: We report the results of an assessor-blinded, bilateral, concurrent comparison of two emollient pharmaceutical presentations, ie, Doublebase gel (DB) and Aqueous cream BP (AC), applied by 20 participants three times daily for 7 consecutive days. The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative improvement in skin hydration measured by corneometry on days 1, 3, and 5 immediately before the first application and approximately 2 hours after the third application of the day. Secondary endpoints were investigator assessment of skin condition at these time points and participant assessment of product acceptability at the end of the study. RESULTS: Both products increased skin hydration, but the effect of AC was relatively modest, with morning values readily returning to pretreatment levels. Hydration levels were higher for DB gel, maintained at all time points, and showed stepwise, cumulative increases over the 7 days of use. Overall patient satisfaction scores were higher for DB gel, and especially for “consistency,” “ease of use,” and “ease of absorption into the skin.” Eighty-five percent of participants expressed a desire to use DB gel again as compared with 40% for AC. Dove Medical Press 2012-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3426268/ /pubmed/22956880 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S32642 Text en © 2012 Djokic-Gallagher et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd. This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Djokic-Gallagher, Jasmina
Rosher, Phil
Walker, Jennine
Hart, Valerie
Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
title Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
title_full Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
title_fullStr Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
title_full_unstemmed Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
title_short Objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
title_sort objective and subjective in vivo comparison of two emollient products
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22956880
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S32642
work_keys_str_mv AT djokicgallagherjasmina objectiveandsubjectiveinvivocomparisonoftwoemollientproducts
AT rosherphil objectiveandsubjectiveinvivocomparisonoftwoemollientproducts
AT walkerjennine objectiveandsubjectiveinvivocomparisonoftwoemollientproducts
AT hartvalerie objectiveandsubjectiveinvivocomparisonoftwoemollientproducts