Cargando…

Implications of a Diabetic Foot Xerosis Treatment With an Emulsion Containing the Plant-Based Anionic Phospholipids

PURPOSE: This study compares and contrasts a skin cream containing plant-based anionic polar phospholipid (APP) technology with a mineral oil hydrocarbon (petrolatum)-based (MHB) skin cream technology in the treatment of skin xerosis (dryness) in diabetic feet. Skin cream with APP technology promote...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Glonek, Thomas, Greiner, Jack V., Oliver, Paula J., Baker, Terrance L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8977773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35354339
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21501319211068653
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: This study compares and contrasts a skin cream containing plant-based anionic polar phospholipid (APP) technology with a mineral oil hydrocarbon (petrolatum)-based (MHB) skin cream technology in the treatment of skin xerosis (dryness) in diabetic feet. Skin cream with APP technology promotes phospholipid absorption, reparation of intercellular lamellae, and organization of water promoting hydration; whereas skin cream with mineral hydrocarbon-based (MHB) technology principally covers skin, preventing dehydration. METHODS: Subjects (n = 54) with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and foot skin dryness were studied using a multicenter, double-blind, masked-study design. An emulsion cream containing 0.05% APP in triglycerides (APP preparation) was compared to MHB skin cream, Eucerin(®) (MHB preparation) applied topically to skin of the feet. Graded measurements were recorded on 4 efficacy variables including dryness, erythema, fissures, and itching and neurovascular assessments. Implications of the plant-based and mineral-based skin creams in the context of skin xerosis are contrasted. RESULTS: APP and MHB preparations were similar in effectiveness and safety. There was no significant difference among any of the 4 efficacy variables (P < .5) including neurovascular measurements. The APP preparation is absorbed into the skin, whereas the MHB skin cream leaves detectable residues after each application. CONCLUSION: Although the APP and MHB preparations were not significantly different in effectiveness and safety, distinctively, application of the APP skin cream preparation absorbed into the skin leaving no discernible residue in contrast to the MHB preparation leaving residues potentiating textile damage. Both of these technologies function in the hydration of skin; however, they differ in their modes of action. The plant-based APP preparation functions actively by phospholipid and triglyceride absorption, reparation of skin lamellae, and in the consequent delivery and organization of waters of hydration in skin. The MHB preparation functions passively, hydrating the skin it covers by sealing the skin against dehydration.