IntroductionHealthcare professionals tend to recommend emollients based primarily on patient/consumer preference and cost, with cheaper options assumed to be therapeutically equivalent. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the effects on skin hydration of two emollients prescribed in the UK, Doublebase Dayleve™ gel (DELP) and a cheaper alternative, Zerobase Emollient™ cream (ZBC).MethodsThis was a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, concurrent bi-lateral (within-patient) comparison in 18 females with atopic eczema and dry skin on their lower legs. DELP gel and ZBC cream were each applied to one lower leg twice daily for 4 days and on the morning only on day 5. The efficacy of both products was assessed by hydration measurements using a Corneometer CM825 probe (Courage-Khazaka Electronic). The measurements were made three times daily on days 1 to 5. The primary efficacy variable was the area under the curve (AUC) of the change from baseline corneometer readings over the 5 days.ResultsSkin hydration using DELP gel was significantly higher than using ZBC cream (p < 0.0001). The cumulative increase in skin hydration observed for DELP gel was substantial and long lasting. In contrast, for ZBC cream, there was no significant improvement of the cumulative skin hydration as measured by the AUC (p = 0.22).ConclusionDELP gel achieved substantial, long-lasting and cumulative skin hydration, whilst ZBC cream achieved no measurable improvement in skin hydration compared to before treatment. Healthcare professionals should be aware that different emollients can perform differently.FundingDermal Laboratories Ltd.Trial RegistrationEudraCT number:2014-001026-16.
BackgroundFew studies have directly compared the effectiveness of different emollients in vivo, and the important matter of patient preference is generally overlooked.MethodsWe 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.ResultsBoth 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.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the moisturising efficacy and acceptability of physical characteristics of two commonly prescribed emollients licenced in the UK, Doublebase Dayleve gel (DELP) and Diprobase cream (DIPC). Methods: The study was a double-blind, concurrent bi-lateral comparison in female eczema subjects with dry skin. Results: In Part 1, comparing the area under the curve (AUC) change from baseline corneometer readings over 24 h following single applications of the emollients to the volar forearms of 34 subjects, the AUC for DELP was more than three times that seen for DIPC (p < 0.0001). In Part 2, comparing the same outcome measured over 5 days of twice daily applications to the lower legs in 36 subjects, the AUC for DELP was approximately five times that for DIPC (p < 0.0001). 69% of subjects “Like Slightly” or “Like Strongly” DELP compared to 33% for DIPC (p = 0.025). 72% indicated they would use DELP again compared to 33% for DIPC (p = 0.033). 75% of subjects preferred DELP, 17% preferred DIPC and 8% expressed no preference (p = 0.0004).
Background/aim: Adex gel (DENI) is a leave-on emollient, containing an ancillary anti-inflammatory medicinal substance, nicotinamide, for use in the treatment and management of dry skin conditions prone to inflammation. The aim of the study was to obtain patients’ and a Medical Investigator’s feedback on the clinical performance and acceptability of the product, and to assess the product’s potential for reducing patients’ reliance on topical corticosteroids and immunomodulators. Methods: Forty-eight patients were enrolled with 43 patients completing the study. These patients used the product on its own, or as adjunctive therapy, for two weeks instead of their usual emollient, applying it three times daily or more often if necessary. Using a questionnaire, subjects then indicated whether they were in agreement or not with various statements about the clinical performance and acceptability of the product. In the second part of the study, twenty patients used the product for four weeks, this time using it as often as they liked. The Medical Investigator looked at both the performance and the acceptability of the treatment. Patients completed a questionnaire again to indicate how they used it and whether their use of topical corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator treatments had changed. Results: Patient’s responses were very positive, ranging from 81% to 100% agreement with each performance statement in relation to beneficial effects on the skin. The Medical Investigator considered that for nearly all patients, DENI gel was a helpful and convenient addition to their treatment regime. When questioned on steroid-sparing effects, more than half reported that they needed to use less of their other anti-inflammatory treatments, and nearly 95% reported that they felt their skin condition had benefited from using DENI gel. Conclusion: This new anti-inflammatory emollient appears to be a helpful addition to the treatment armamentarium for eczema and psoriasis that may reduce reliance on topical corticosteroids and immunomodulators.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.