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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |