Adouble-blindcomparisonoftwocreamscontainingureaas theactiveingredient. Assessment of efficacy and side-effects by non-invasive techniques and a clinical scoring scheme

Abstract

From a group of 72 healthy individuals, 47 with evidence of dry skin according to measurements by non-invasive techniques were enrolled for a 3-week study withdouble-blindand randomized treatment of one forearm, using either 3%ureacream (HTH lotion 'light') or 10%ureacream (HTH lotion 'Original'). The contralateral forearm served as an untreated control.Twovolunteers had to be excluded because measurements of skin surface lipids gave evidence of vehicle components on the skin surface at the time of final evaluations. Evaluations took place not less than 12 h after the last application. According to questionnaire replies, thetwocreamswere equally effective. This was confirmed by "blind" evaluation of the skin hydration state by a dermatologist, measurements of electrical capacitance and conductance indicating epidermal and skin surface hydration, and by D-Squame tape assessments including optical transmission of tapes with stratum corneum and scales from adhering skin, as well as visual scoring of the tapes. The methods showed a high degree of correlation, i.a. a definite relation between increase in electrical hydration parameters, reduced scaling according to the D-Squame tape evaluations, and clinical improvement of dryness. In skin treated with 10%ureacream the transepidermal water loss (TEWL) decreased, indicating an improved water barrier function. Skin colour measurement according to the CIE colour system showed that skin treated with the 3%ureacream turned in the direction of yellow, and there was generally a tendency for the brightness to decrease. Thus, the 3%ureacream gave the skin a more golden colour. There was no change in redness with any of thecreams. Neither data from the questionnaire, the clinical examination, nor results of TEWL and colour measurements indicated any local irritant effect ofureacausing water barrier damage or inflammation. In conclusion, the 3% and 10%ureacreamswere both found efficient, resulting in improvement of hydration and reduction of scaling. Both were non-toxic. However, specific differences did appear, viz. the 3%ureacream turned the skin colour golden, while the 10%ureacream improved the skin's water barrier function.

Heatmap Evaluation of Facial Hydration Using a Novel Python Program

“…11 Use of glycerin-containing moisturizers has been shown to soothe dry skin and reduce water loss in patients with atopic, dry, and irritated skin. [12][13][14] Panthenol has humectant properties but is also…”

Going Beyond Ceramides in Moisturizers: The Role of Natural Moisturizing Factors

“…9,10 The impact of xerosis is increasingly appreciated by healthcare professionals, particularly as the population ages, since dry skin in older patients can lead to problems that can be significant. 11 For example, excoriation of dry, pruritic skin can lead to infection, fragile and dry or cracked skin in individuals with poor mobility can lead to pressure ulcers, and in those with insulin-dependent diabetes, dry skin can be a precursor to foot erosions and infections. 11 Dry skin may also be a sign of malnutrition among elderly individuals.…”

“…11 For example, excoriation of dry, pruritic skin can lead to infection, fragile and dry or cracked skin in individuals with poor mobility can lead to pressure ulcers, and in those with insulin-dependent diabetes, dry skin can be a precursor to foot erosions and infections. 11 Dry skin may also be a sign of malnutrition among elderly individuals. 11…”