Maintenance of an Acidic Skin Surface with a Novel Zinc Lactobionate Emollient Preparation Improves Skin Barrier Function in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: The skin of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterised by elevated pH. As a central homeostatic regulator, an increased pH accelerates desquamation and suppresses lipid processing, resulting in diminished skin barrier function. The aim of this study was to determine whether a novel zinc lactobionate emollient cream can strengthen the skin barrier by lowering skin surface pH. METHODS: A double-blind, forearm-controlled cohort study was undertaken in patients with AD. Participants applied the test cream to one forearm and a vehicle cream to the other (randomised allocation) twice daily for 56 days. Skin surface pH and barrier function (primary outcomes) were assessed at baseline and after 28 days and 56 days of treatment, amongst other tests. RESULTS: A total of 23 adults with AD completed the study. During and after treatment, a sustained difference in skin surface pH was observed between areas treated with the test cream and vehicle (4.50 ± 0.38 versus 5.25 ± 0.54, respectively, p < 0.0001). This was associated with significantly reduced transepidermal water loss (TEWL) on the test cream treated areas compared with control (9.71 ± 2.47 versus 11.20 ± 3.62 g/m2/h, p = 0.0005). Improvements in skin barrier integrity, skin sensitivity to sodium lauryl sulphate, skin hydration, and chymotrypsin-like protease activity were all observed at sites treated with the test cream compared with the control. CONCLUSION: Maintenance of an acidic skin surface pH and delivery of physiologic lipids are beneficial for skin health and may help improve AD control by reducing sensitivity to irritants and allergens.

Different types of emollient cream exhibit diverse physiological effects on the skin barrier in adults with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Eczema (atopic dermatitis; AD) is a very common itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and up to 1 in 10 adults worldwide. The skin of eczema sufferers is prone to redness, irritation and dryness because it does not form an effective barrier, i.e. the ability of the skin to stop irritants, allergens and microorganisms getting into the body. Skin barrier dysfunction is a hallmark of AD. The regular and liberal (600 g/week for an adult) use of emollients is recommended for all patients with eczema), even between episodes of itching and redness, to soften and soothe the skin. In England alone, almost 9 million prescriptions for emollient creams were issued in 2018, at a cost of over £50 million. Despite this widespread use, relatively little is known about how commonly prescribed emollient creams affect the skin's barrier, and thus the role of moisturizers in AD development and progression remains unclear. We set out to compare three different types of emollient cream and a no-treatment control. AIM: To compare the barrier-strengthening properties of a new moisturizer containing urea and glycerol (urea-glycerol cream; UGC), with those of a glycerol-containing moisturizer (glycerol cream; GC), a simple paraffin cream (PC) with no humectant, and a no-treatment control (NTC). METHODS: This was an observer-blinded prospective Phase 2 within-subject multilateral single-centre randomized controlled trial in adults with AD (Clinical Trials #NCT03901144). The intervention involved 4 weeks of treatment, twice daily, with the three products applied to one of four areas on the forearms the (the fourth area was the untreated control, randomized allocation). Skin properties [dryness, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration and natural moisturizing factor (NMF) levels] were assessed before, during and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier. The primary outcome was skin sensitivity to the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) after treatment. We performed tests on the skin before and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier. RESULTS: In total, 49 patients were randomized, completed treatment and included in the analysis. UGC significantly reduced the response to SLS as indicated by a reduction in TEWL compared with NTC (-9.0 g/m2 /h; 95% CI -12.56 to -5.49), with PC (-9.0 g/m2 /h; 95% CI -12.60 to -5.44) and with GC -4.2 g/m2 /h; 95% CI 7.76 to -0.63). Skin moisturization improved at sites treated with UGC compared with NTC and PC, and this was accompanied by concordant changes in dryness and NMF levels. Subgroup analysis suggested FLG-dependent enhancement of treatment effects. CONCLUSION: The study showed that not all emollient creams for eczema are equal. The simple paraffin-based emollient, which represents the most widely prescribed type of emollient cream in England, had no effect on the skin's barrier and reduced the skin's NMF. UGC markedly improved the skin's barrier and protected against irritation. GC performed better than PC, but not as well as UGC. UGC strengthened the skin barrier through a mechanism involving increased NMF levels in the skin, and imparted protection from SLS-induced irritation. By helping correct a major pathophysiological process, UGC has the potential to improve the long-term control of AD. The results show that different emollient creams have different effects on our skin, and only certain types have the ability to improve the skin's barrier and protect against irritants that trigger eczema.

Enhancement of stratum corneum lipid structure improves skin barrier function and protects against irritation in adults with dry, eczema-prone skin.

BACKGROUND: The skin of patients with atopic dermatitis is characterized by abnormal stratum corneum lipid levels. Consequently, the lamellar matrices are disrupted and skin barrier function is diminished, increasing skin sensitivity to irritants and allergens. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a cream containing ceramides, triglycerides and cholesterol in a multivesicular emulsion can reinforce the skin barrier and protect against skin irritation. METHODS: A randomized observer-blind intrapatient-controlled study in 34 adults with dry, eczema-prone skin was conducted. Each participant underwent 4 weeks of treatment with the test cream on one forearm and lower leg and a reference emollient cream on the other. Skin properties were determined before and after treatment. Lipid structure was assessed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy using a novel interface. RESULTS: Skin barrier integrity was greater at sites treated with the test cream [effect size for area under the transepidermal water loss curve -162, 95% confidence interval (CI) -206 to -118]. Skin sensitivity to sodium lauryl sulfate was reduced (-0·5 points visual redness, 97·57% CI -1·00 to -0·25), as was transepidermal water loss (-15·3 g m-2 h-1 , 95% CI -20·3 to -10·4) compared with the reference. Sites treated with the test cream displayed enhanced lipid chain ordering, which was significantly associated with skin barrier integrity (r = 0·61). Compared with the reference, treatment with the test cream increased hydration (8·61 capacitance units, 95% CI 6·61-10·6) and decreased signs of dryness. CONCLUSIONS: The test cream facilitates skin barrier restoration and protects the skin from dryness and irritation. Compared with a commonly prescribed emollient in the UK, the test cream is highly suited to the management of dry, sensitive skin.

An Investigation of the Skin Barrier Restoring Effects of a Cream and Lotion Containing Ceramides in a Multi-vesicular Emulsion in People with Dry, Eczema-Prone, Skin: The RESTORE Study Phase 1.

INTRODUCTION: The replenishment of skin lipids depleted in the dry skin state is a desirable therapeutic target to restore skin moisturization; however, there is limited evidence demonstrating the success of this approach through the use of topical emollients. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence of the benefits of a cream and equivalent lotion containing skin lipids in a multi-vesicular emulsion for the management of dry skin. The hypothesis was that the test cream and test lotion could sustain skin moisturization for longer than traditional emollients by sustainably delivering skin lipids. METHODS: A double-blind intra-subject vehicle-controlled single open-application test on the lower legs in people with dry, atopic dermatitis (atopic eczema)-prone, skin was conducted. There were six treatment sites, three per lower leg in each participant, which were treated with the test cream, the test lotion, three reference creams commonly prescribed in the UK and no treatment as a control. After baseline measurements of skin hydration, 100 µl of the test/reference creams was applied to each of the relevant treatment sites (random site allocation). Following treatment, measurements of skin hydration and scoring of visual dryness was conducted at timed intervals (3, 6, 12 and 24 h post-product application). RESULTS: The test cream and lotion both significantly increased skin hydration and reduced skin dryness for at least 24 h following a single application compared to a no treatment control site. Compared to three reference emollient creams the test cream and test lotion were the only products capable of sustaining clinically meaningful improvements in skin moisturization for 24 h. CONCLUSION: The sustained moisturization imparted by the test products reduces the need for frequent emollient application, often requiring 3-4 applications per day for traditional emollients, and should reduce the high burden of managing dry skin conditions like atopic dermatitis.