ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Aloe vera is a natural product that is frequently used in soothing skin care products such as aftersun lotions. In the present study we aimed to explore the anti-inflammatory potential of a highly concentrated A. vera gel in the UV erythema test in vivo. METHODS: 40 volunteers with skin types II and III were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III monocenter study. Test areas on the back were irradiated with the 1.5-fold minimal erythema dose of UVB. Subsequently, the test areas were treated occlusively on 2 subsequent days with A. vera gel (97.5%), the positive controls (0.25% prednicarbate, 1% hydrocortisone in placebo gel and 1% hydrocortisone cream) and a placebo gel. Erythema values were determined photometrically after 24 and 48 h. RESULTS: A. vera gel (97.5%) significantly reduced UV-induced erythema after 48 h, being superior to 1% hydrocortisone in placebo gel. In contrast, 1% hydrocortisone in cream was more efficient than A. vera gel. CONCLUSIONS: In this study after 48 h the A. vera gel (97.5%) displayed some anti-inflammatory effects superior to those of 1% hydrocortisone in placebo gel. The A. vera gel tested here might be useful in the topical treatment of inflammatory skin conditions such as UV-induced erythema.
Subject(s)
Aloe , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Erythema/drug therapy , Phytotherapy , Skin/drug effects , Ultraviolet Rays , Administration, Topical , Adult , Back , Double-Blind Method , Drug Evaluation/methods , Erythema/etiology , Erythema/prevention & control , Female , Gels , Humans , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Plant Preparations/therapeutic use , Prednisolone/analogs & derivatives , Prednisolone/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Skin/pathology , Skin/radiation effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The ultraviolet (UV) erythema test is one of the most frequently used methods to investigate the anti-inflammatory potency of topical dermatological preparations in vivo. METHODS: The following questions were addressed in four separate studies with healthy persons (skin types 2 and 3): (1) the optimal localization was determined by comparing light scales on the back, buttocks and volar forearms; (2) the optimal UV-B dose was determined by comparing the 1-fold, 1.5-fold and 2-fold minimal erythema doses (MEDs); (3) hydrocortisone and prednicarbate were evaluated as positive controls, and a sample size calculation was performed, and (4) betamethasone valerate and pimecrolimus were tested as further positive controls in the optimized study model. RESULTS: The back proved to be the best localization for the UV erythema test. It showed a good correlation between the light scale and the test areas. The 1.5-fold MED was the best irradiation dose. In contrast to prednicarbate and betamethasone valerate, hydrocortisone was a rather weak positive control. However, when the sample size was > or = 40 subjects, significant results were also obtained with hydrocortisone. Pimecrolimus was not effective in the UV erythema test. CONCLUSIONS: The UV erythema test should be performed on the back with at least 40 subjects using the 1.5-fold MED. It may be useful to include a potent corticosteroid, such as prednicarbate or betamethasone valerate, in addition to hydrocortisone. The UV erythema test seems to be suitable only for substances with corticosteroid-like effects, since in this test model the calcineurin inhibitor pimecrolimus was not effective.
