探讨两种评价皮肤屏障修复保湿效果的临床方法。

PubMed ID
发表日期 2019年May月

原始出处 皮肤研究与技术:国际生物工程与皮肤学会(ISBS)官方期刊[和]国际皮肤数字成像学会(ISDIS)[和]国际皮肤成像学会(ISIS)
Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)
作者 Snatchfold  Jane  Targett  Darren 

文献标题 探讨两种评价皮肤屏障修复保湿效果的临床方法。
Exploratory study to evaluate two clinical methods for assessing moisturizing effect on skin barrier repair.

文献摘要 BACKGROUND

研究了两种评估保湿霜对女性干性皮肤角质层(SC)屏障修复效果的临床方法,为今后的研究确定了一种评估方法。

METHODS

在这项单中心、分体研究中,干性皮肤的女性在使用D-Squame®脱模盘前(方法A)或后(方法B)使用SC屏障干扰后使用保湿霜。在14天的时间里,评估了D-鳞片上的经皮水分损失(TEWL)和残余蛋白质。

RESULTS

包括24名受试者。在方法A中,1/TEWL与去除的累积蛋白质的平均斜率值随时间的推移在处理区和未处理区均降低,表明SC屏障质量得到改善。在处理区和未处理区之间没有显著差异,尽管在处理区的第14天观察到更负的斜率趋势(P=0.082),表明处理改善了屏障质量。对于方法B,使用剥离前和剥离后作为协变量,从剥离后到第3-14天的任何评估,在处理区域和未处理区域之间没有观察到TEWL变化的统计差异/趋势。在最初的第3天评估中,已处理和未处理区域的TEWL值返回到预剥离值。

CONCLUSION

对于方法A,有趋势表明保湿处理改善了SC屏障质量。对于方法B,治疗区和未治疗区之间没有显著差异/趋势。不同方法的进一步评估有助于设计合适的临床方案来评估皮肤屏障的加速修复。这些数据不足以断定产品或方法是否对结果负责。


BACKGROUND

Two clinical methods of assessing a moisturizer's effect on stratum corneum (SC) barrier repair were evaluated in female subjects with dry skin, to identify an assessment method for future studies.

METHODS

In this single-centre, split-body study, women with dry skin applied moisturizer before (method A) or after (method B) SC barrier perturbation using D-Squame® stripping discs. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and residual protein on D-Squame discs were assessed over 14 days.

RESULTS

Twenty-four subjects were included. For method A, the mean slope values of plots of 1/TEWL vs cumulative protein removed decreased over time for both treated and untreated areas, indicating improved SC barrier quality. There were no significant differences between treated and untreated areas, although a trend to a more negative slope was observed by Day 14 in the treated areas (P = 0.082), suggesting treatment improved barrier quality. For method B, using pre- and post-stripping as covariates, no statistical differences/trends were observed between treated and untreated areas for change in TEWL from post-stripping to any evaluation from Days 3-14. TEWL values returned towards pre-stripping values for treated and untreated areas by the initial Day 3 evaluation.

CONCLUSION

For method A, there were trends suggesting the moisturizing treatment improved SC barrier quality. For method B, there were no significant differences/trends between treated and untreated areas. Further assessment with different methodologies is warranted to design appropriate clinical protocols for evaluating accelerated skin barrier repair. These data are insufficient to conclude whether the product or methodology was responsible for the results.


获取全文 10.1111/srt.12632